Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF AMENITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I begin by saying how sorry I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) is not able to move the Second Reading? It will be within the knowledge of the House that, since he was fortunate enough to be successful in the Ballot, he has been translated to other spheres which preclude such frivolities as this. I will not say that I am merely acting as a vehicle for his ideas. I think that it would be more accurate to say that I am acting as his lightning conductor.
The Bill is short. It is a little involved. It has a single object. I might also add, for the benefit of hon. Members who watch these things, that it involves no public expenditure of any kind.
I think that it will help the House if I state the object at once and as clearly as I can. The object is to stop the swamping of shop fronts, the obliteration of the identity of shops, by advertisements for the branded goods they sell. This is as closely as I can define it. This is the object—no more and no less. I very much hope that this will not be interpreted as an attack on outdoor advertising as such. I have no doubt that a case could be made against other aspects of it, but it will not be made by me.
I accept, at any rate for the purposes of this limited exercise, all the arguments which are frequently adduced in

favour of advertising, both indoors and out. It is colourful, as one discovers when one looks at some of the Communist countries where there is no advertising and which, consequently, look very drab. Advertising is a concomitant to competitive enterprise. It provides, in the view of some, the principal intellectual content of the Independent Television Programmes.
Moreover, it has provided me indirectly with a means of livelihood as a journalist, and I should be the last to attack it.
However, all good things can be spoiled by excess. A balance must be struck. It is the view of many good judges that this manifestation of outdoor advertising has overstepped the mark. Both in town and in country there has been for some time an increasing tendency for manufacturers of branded goods to dominate the face of shops, in particular to substitute for the shop sign advertisements for their own brand of goods.
This act of substitution, whereby "James Robinson", writ large, "Stationer and Tobacconist", writ small, becomes "Players Please', writ large, and "J. Robinson", writ very small, is known as the sponsored fascia panel. Admittedly, this is not new, but its extensive use as we see it today is new and it is not a practice which some of us think ought to be allowed to develop further on present lines.
Before pursuing this, perhaps I may remind the House of the present state of the law. For our purposes it is well contained in Statutory Instrument 695/1960—the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1960. This Statutory Instrument consolidates the Regulations which were first drafted in 1948 after the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
At the risk of gross simplification, I will give the gist of it. In Part II of the Statutory Instrument will be found the general provisions; that is, the terms on which permission is sought and granted for the general run of outdoor advertisements. In Part III, which is not our concern today, we find the regulations governing areas of special control. But in Part IV we find listed five classes which do not require express consent; that is, planning permission need not be


sought for those seeking to erect advertisements under this heading.
This is a category which is covered by the expression "deemed consent", but may be challenged by local planning authorities if, in their opinion, the advertisements offend. The fourth of these classes—advertisements on business premises—brings us to the nub of the Bill. This is one of the "deemed consent" categories, and the Statutory Instrument states:
Advertisements displayed on business premises wholly with reference to all or any of the following matters: the business or other activity carried on, the goods sold or services provided, and the name and qualifications of the person carrying on such business or activity or supplying such goods or services, on those premises.
On the face of it, that seems sound enough, but a loophole lies in the phrase "the goods sold". Under the cover of these words the fascia sign can go up without consent and only if it appears sufficiently objectionable—as a high proportion have appeared—can it be challenged.
The method of the Bill is to eliminate the words "goods sold or" and again, in a later line, the words "goods or," thereby, as it were, removing branded goods from the sanctuary of Part IV, from which I quoted. Thus eliminated, they would automatically revert to Part II of the Regulations where other considerations arise before advertisements are sanctioned. I realise that there would be other consequences which might be in the minds of hon. Members, but I will come to those later.
The fascia is thus, by the Bill, not banned or barred and nor, I hasten to add, dealt with retrospectively, which would be intolerable. The fascia, together with certain other matters, is simply transferred six months' hence to another part of the Regulations where positive consent must be sought subject to wider considerations of amenity.
It might be convenient if I gave some account of how these Regulations, which came into force in May, 1960, have been fortified by the advertising profession. With the approval of the then Minister—now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a code of standards for advertising on business premises was set up. This was a voluntary movement between

those concerned with outdoor advertising with the object of setting a standard of amenity for such advertisements and for clearing up clutter. In congratulating the Committee, of which Lord Luke was the Chairman, the Minister expressed the hope at that time that he would see results in about two years.
Although those two years are not, technically, up until next month, I pay warm tribute to the work of this Committee and to those who have co-operated with it. It is certainly no part of my case to belittle its endeavours. It has made strenuous efforts and has achieved some degree of success. It has not achieved all that some of us hoped for, but the results are far from negligible.
The Committee has concluded what it calls "phase one"—which concerns rural areas—and has already broached the second phase, which concerns the large towns. The companies represented on the working committee had, by the end of last month, removed about 73,000 signs and had resited another 15,000. That sounds a lot, but then, of course, there are a lot. The newspaper and periodical industry has removed about 36,000 contents boards and, naturally, I would like to give them a pat on the back for so doing.
As one might expect, this work has run up against the principal target of the Bill; the fascia sign. I do not want to embarrass the Committee, but it is fair to say that it has not found the development of the fascia or the firms mainly responsible for it very much help in the work it has been trying to do. The Committee claims that, in respect of 830 fascias which overstepped the mark, some modification was obtained or they were removed. But the whole point is that a vast number of fascias have gone up during the Committee's anti-clutter campaign, and are still going up.
Perhaps I should now comment on some other views. Although I am not anxious to exaggerate the case against this kind of advertising, the objections are not slight and I shall deal, first, with some of the objections to the fascia board and some of its close cousins. First, these boards remove any distinction between traders, that distinction at present being an agreeable feature of


many of our shopping streets. Secondly, they replace diversity with uniform boards displaying advertisements for branded goods and giving, in some streets, every appearance of the tied house.
Some of them are brilliant, even garish in colour; not surprising, because they are designed to be eye catching. They provoke reprisals from those less skilled at signwriting than the original offender and they provoke others to imitate them. The system frequently expands into other and larger signs, often at right angles to a building and on side walls, although that can offend and be open to challenge.
When one speaks of the challenging procedure—with which I will not weary the House—one realises that one is speaking of a race which the challengers can never win. A further objection is that this system must reduce the impulse to reduce clutter, which everyone in the business, advertisers included, are anxious to do. It runs straight in the face of attempts that are being made by such bodies as the Civic Trust to select certain streets for a face lift which results both in their profit and the profit of their traders.
Last, but by no means least, in my opinion, the interpretation which has been put upon this part of the Regulations is not in accordance with the will of Parliament when the Regulations were passed. That, of course, is open to the views of other hon. Members. Reactions among planning officers are fairly varied. In certain counties planning officers have fought and are fighting by challenge, which is a wearisome and expensive business, but I think that they have fought, and are still fighting, a losing battle. Hence this Bill. In this contest of "Gentlemen v. Players" the "Players" always win.
I should next like to touch on some criticisms which have been, and I have no doubt will be, made of the Bill as it stands. I want to deal, first, with a point which is very much in the minds of some of my hon. Friends, namely, that the effect of the Clause as it stands would not be to subject the fascia but all forms of advertisement of branded goods on business premises to the process which I have outlined. That is

quite true, and I must tell hon. Members that that is no accident. I am not a clever draftsman, but I am not as stupid as all that, and I will explain why this has been done.
I have not the slightest doubt that, as things are, the spread of the fascia board in one direction, if ingeniously curbed by a form of words in such a Bill as this, would be exploited in another direction almost immediately, because that is the move behind the whole business. A way has been found of making the fascia compatible with these Regulations—at least with the letter of the law if not with the spirit of the law—and it can and will be done again.
As matters stand—I stress this—nothing less than comprehensive legislation could really be guaranteed to do the trick, and thus the force of this Clause, which is quite deliberate. I hope that the advertising industry, on nearly all of whose side I am, will not miss the point. They are the hostages of the worst offenders in this matter.
Of course, a Clause as wide as this is not necessary to achieve the object that I have stated. It is necessary, however, to defeat the increasing number of devices which masquerade as fascia boards and the like. The Regulations as they stand must be interpreted within the obvious limitations as giving carte blanche to manufacturers to do as they will with shops, front and back. That must either be understood and lead to the further exercise of self-restraint by the advertisers and the imposition of that self-restraint on some of the black sheep, or we shall eventually have to have some better drafting on these lines than my poor hand is capable of doing.
There seem to be three alternatives here. The advertisers can settle this among themselves. They have done their best. In my opinion, that is the right approach for the Conservative Party to take, and I support it. The second alternative, if that does not work, is that the Minister must amend the Regulations. Thirdly, if he will not do that, a private Member of Parliament must. That is why I am offering this Bill for Second Reading.
I say bluntly that a degree of ruthless-ness has been shown—and I am not going to mince words here—by the big


tobacco companies and others in this business, and I am not going to shrink from just a touch of ruthlessness on my own account. I admit to a weakness for this subject of environment, believing that it really does in the long run make a very big contribution to human health, welfare and happiness, and that, broadly speaking, it is very underrated. But I am not eccentric about this. I am fortified in what I am doing by the knowledge that what is being done is contrary to the wish of Parliament and to the wish of the overwhelming number of advertisers themselves, as I can show.
In the papers which have lately been circulated to some hon. Members the code of standards gives the fascia fairly objective treatment. I can only say that that contrasts a little with feelings expressed only a year ago. In February, 1961, a letter was addressed from the Committee to the Chairmen of the Imperial Tobacco Company and Gallahers. I think that it would not be improper to read two passages from it.
At the same time, as we can record this progress in the right direction"—
that is "Players"—
there is, unfortunately, a retrograde step which is much more noticeable and is causing considerable doubt in the public mind as to whether a voluntary code can be really effective. I refer not to the general principle of fascia boards as displayed by your Company, but to those boards which, by their size and shape, do not fit into their surroundings and which, indeed, are adding to existing clutter and doing serious damage to the cause of advertising as a whole. Outdoor advertising is on trial as never before.
It concludes with this passage:
Therefore, may I ask you to let me know how far your representatives have implemented the promise given to me that offending fascia boards would be removed and only those which comply with the spirit of the code will be erected.
May I add to those words some expressions of a planning officer, whom I will not name as he is a public official in one of the English counties. I do not want hon. Members to think that this is a purely personal point of view that I am expressing. He said:
This type of advertising involves a complete abuse of Class IV,"—
to which I have already alluded—
which was never designed with such displays in mind, but was intended to enable the trader to display his name and trade and a reasonable amount of advertising of his products

without the formality of obtaining consent. It seems quite immoral for an organisation the size of the Imperial Tobacco Company to pay lip-service to the Code and, at the same time, indulge in this complete abuse of its principles.
Those are not my words. They are the words of a very much better judge of these matters than I. To this, of course, the response may be made that the offending fascia signs have been taken down. All I can suggest is that the evidence of the eye today indicates otherwise.
This brings me to the subject of the two principal tobacco companies concerned, and here I am most anxious not to use the protection of this House for any expression which could not be justified outside. I think that most of the evidence speaks for itself. "Players Please", "Capstan" and "Senior Service" predominate these fascias. There is no secret about who makes them. I feel that in this matter the attitude of these two big companies, although they are now not alone—and it is one of my fears that they may be joined by an ever-increasing host—has been to a degree cynical They have pursued a somewhat selfish policy in this direction, fully aware not only of the damage which they are doing themselves but the example which they are setting to others.
It is part of my submission that companies of this size have certain social obligations which may not necessarily be on all fours with the sale of the maximum amount of goods. They carry responsibilities in all sorts of ways, and I do not hesitate to name this as one. These big firms cannot but be aware that they have been skating on very thin ice round the Regulations, acting contrary to much reasonable opinion, in conflict with the endeavours of the advertising industry itself to achieve improvement, and contrary to the effort of many amenity societies, led by the Civic Trust, which have certainly not in this respect, I submit, behaved as crack-pots. Such a policy does not amount to leadership. It reflects rather grievously on some of those who have been in charge of these matters. I say no more.
The thought may pass through people's minds that the discussion we are now having about the fascia sign in particular, which is closely linked with


the tobacco companies, should be associated with the other news received this week. I propose to make no close association between these two subjects. I find it difficult to reconcile with my own philosophy a policy of positively restraining advertising of a product which may be harmful in excess. However this may appear to other hon. Members—we shall, no doubt, discuss the matter at the appropriate time—all I want to make plain now is that I do not use the report on the harmful effects of smoking as a stick to beat this particular back. The Bill relates to amenity, not to health, and it is to amenity that I adhere.
Dealing further with the criticisms which could be levelled at the Bill, one school of thought, of course, is that the fascia is often an improvement on the dull sign which it replaces. This does not carry much weight with me. The object, of course, is not to improve the shop but to advertise the goods. Moreover, I do not think that uniformity of this kind enhances the dignity of a street.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, believes in diversity. That is a very sound principle, and it applies very well in this matter. I well remember the awful trouble that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) got into many years ago when he let loose a little phrase about the man in Whitehall knowing best. I hope that we shall not have it suggested in this case that the man in Bristol knows best. I am quite sure that he does not.
I come now to the Government's attitude. I do not seek to make my hon. Friend's task harder. I am thinking aloud, as it were. The present Minister's predecessor, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, thought that the regulations ought to have a trial run for two years to see what the industry did meanwhile to collaborate. The two years terminate in April. Quite rightly, no one has been anxious to anticipate this termination of experiment. I see the force of that. Nevertheless, while the effort on the whole has, according to the evidence, been altogether praiseworthy, the trend in this sphere remains retrograde. We do not need to wait until April to see what is happening to fascia signs.

They are going up in more and more places, and the trend here must be regarded as a discouragement to other sections of industry which may be tempted to follow suit.
My hon. Friend may say that the Bill is premature, notwithstanding the reference to six months after the passing of the Bill—rather a good touch, I thought. All I can say is that, if my hon. Friend says that he proposes to go about it in his own way and that I have done it in the wrong way, with all that that implies, I shall listen intently. But, in my view, no harm would be done if this little stimulus were provided, a sort of pathfinder, as it were, which would strengthen the hand of the righteous if it were taken in the right way.
In anticipation of what my hon. Friend may say, I put to him these reflections on the Government's attitude. The Government's best friend could not claim that their attitude to amenity was distinguished. I seek to put this in a reserved way. With the outstanding exception of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who founded and has fostered the Civic Trust, Ministers do not normally keep amenities very high on their list of priorities.
It is not a matter of being foolishly restrictive, but a matter of being occasionally inspired. I confess to a great admiration for the work of the Civic Trust, although I am not a member of it. It is a good illustration of an imaginative and creative instrument not merely to combat the adverse forces all too numerous in our modern life, but sometimes to seek to create beauty where otherwise beauty would not exist. I make no secret that the Bill is inspired by one of the Civic Trust's many aims.
To those hon. Members who may be inclined to belittle the Bill, and think that I have spoken misguidedly in advancing a purpose which is stuffy, fussy, bad for business, restrictive and un-Conservative, I say that this little Bill ought to be seen against the background of the work which the Civic Trust has tried to do. I should not on my own judgment come to the House with a Bill of this sort and say to hon. Members, "These signs offend me. They should be outlawed." But I do not hesitate to do it on behalf of and fortified by the


views of the body which has done so much practical work.
It has done nearly all of it in a creative way without, be it noted, seeking unduly statutory aid from the House of Commons. Chambers of trade, traders, and advertisers make a thumping mistake if they suggest that the Civic Trust is not on their side. One of its principal functions is to select drab streets which have fallen on hard times and give them a face-lift, not as an arty-crafty business, but on clean sensible lines, outstanding examples of which can be seen at Norwich and Windsor. The effect is not only to make streets more attractive but to make them more lucrative, which is what interests those who have to sell. I mention that, because I understand that a start may be made in Edinburgh, which may be a relevant factor.
The Civic Trust endeavours to make a strong contribution to the prosperity of traders and, in wider terms, to the welfare of those who have to live in the streets. Of course, it is not the only body at work. I could name a dozen more, among them the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Trust, all of them making it their job to improve and preserve and try to cherish our surroundings and what we are left with. When the Government can reasonably do so, they should help in this matter and not neglect a chance to give encouragement and support.
What appeals to me about the Civic Trust and what moves me to make the proposal I do in the Bill, small though it be, is that the Civic Trust pursues its mission principally not in the country, not in rural England, but in towns. I say that as one who was born and bred, and who remains at heart, a countryman, as one who instinctively regards the town as a place in which to earn a livelihood and to leave as soon as possible.
It is one of the tragedies of our age that millions of people are conditioned by the same instinct, and there lies the further tragedy in our attitude towards the appearance of our towns and streets. Whenever outrages afflict the countryside, there can usually be found crusaders who will rise up and go into action. Our towns, particularly the small

towns of the Midlands and the North, have fewer champions to fight for them.
Thus we have a generation of, as it were, exiles spending a great deal of their working life in, I do not say drab, but not very distinguished surroundings. Their minds are often fixed as upon a star on the day when they will be able to retire to a small place of their choice far away. They end up just detached on the south coast of England to find that the fascias have got there just ahead of them.
We owe it to this reluctantly urbanised community to make the best of our towns. Much high policy will depend in the years ahead on making our towns places which do not repel, but can attract. Therefore, though their appearance and amenities may seem to hon. Members only a fragment of these great social desiderata and shop signs, but a marginal factor in such considerations, they do count and they should count for something among civilised people which, above all, is inclined to make tastes formerly the prerogative of a few the pleasure of the many. This Bill, heaven knows, is only a tiny contribution in that direction, but that is the motive behind it and that is the fundamental reason why I hope that at least the idea will commend itself to the House.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has delivered a cogent speech on a modest, but very important, Bill, which I hope the House will support. The few words I wish to say on the Bill are not said because I am against all advertising. I do not take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who seems to think that all advertising is equally bad. I think that some advertising is worse than others and some advertising is excellently done. The London Transport posters are often an addition to what the hon. Member for Ashford described as a very drab landscape.
I recently saw in Africa a form of advertising which appealed greatly to me on what are called "mammy buses". One sees fascinating notices on these buses, such as "You, too, can fly", on a very decrepit old bus which shows no signs of flight. I do not know how


another notice which I saw persuaded people to travel on a bus. It read, "The Lord is my shepherd—I don't know why."
The original Regulations were intended to protect the countryside. The question is whether they have succeeded. I should have thought that they have not been as successful as was expected. There are organisations such as the C.P.R.E. and the National Trust which do an enormous amount in their way to protect the countryside and it seems unfortunate that their efforts should be continually thwarted by other organisations which have not the interests of the countryside at heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon has compared this country unfavourably with foreign countries, but in many ways conditions are far better here. I would much prefer to go along the M.1, straight as these motor roads may be, than along the Autostrada, in Italy, with a line of advertisements all the way down them. We should be grateful that we have had organisations such as the C.P.R.E. and the National Trust, which have done so much to preserve the countryside.
If the Bill were passed it would be another step in the right direction. As the hon. Member for Ashford has said, there are many loopholes at present. We have all had the experience of travelling along a road in the countryside, with a beautiful view in front of us, and suddenly being confronted with a huge advertisement on a cottage shop. It may be a pretty cottage, but suddenly one sees a great sign, "Player's Please" in front of one's eyes which completely prevents one from enjoying the view.
The hon. Member for Ashford spoke about the ingenuity of brand firms in getting round the Regulations. These firms are remarkably clever at evading the Regulations in a way that the Minister could never have dreamed of when they were drawn up. I cannot understand the mentality of the tobacco firms. The late Lord Dulverton gave enormous sums of money to beautify Bristol. Whether the buildings which have been erected as a result are beautiful is another matter, but they were built with great trouble and vast expense to beautify the town. Yet Lord Dulverton obtained the

money to pay for the buildings with the aid of this form of advertising, which ruined large areas of the countryside.
It seems to me an extraordinary dichotomy in a human being that he should spend half his time destroying amenities and then spend the other half trying to put beauty elsewhere. It must be said of Lord Dulverton, however, that he did do this work to beautify one town. Many of the tobacco firms have not even thought of doing that.
I join with the hon. Member for Ashford in saying what a remarkable organisation the Civic Trust has proved to be. The fact that it is presided over by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, with whom I often have disputes on matters concerning his Ministry, does not make me think the less of the Civic Trust. It is doing excellent work and it is an excellent thing that the right hon. Gentleman should be presiding over it. It has done remarkable work in Stoke-on-Trent, and also in Norwich, in improving the frontages of just the types of shops that have been mentioned already. But how can they be improved if these big firms are determined to put up large advertisements and to bring pressure groups to bear to prevent improvements being carried out in other towns?
The voluntary code has been on trial for two years and, as the hon. Member for Ashford said, 830 advertisements have been removed. But many more new ones have been put up. I should like to ask the hon. Member, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whether the number is not now in excess of 830. It is very likely far in excess of that number.

Mr. Deedes: Mr. Deedes indicated assent.

Mr. Dugdale: If that is so, and I see that the hon. Member nods in acquiescence, surely the Regulations can be said to have failed.
During the debate on the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Amendment Regulations in February, 1960, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said:
No good advertiser wants to defile the countryside or to harm or injure areas of historical interest or beauty. The special control areas are designed to protect those districts.


I do not know whether the hon. Member includes tobacco companies among good advertisers. If he does, I beg to differ from him. These firms certainly defile the countryside and harm or injure areas of historical interest or beauty.
Later in the same spech, the hon. Member said:
If the industry does not obey this code, I should certainly join with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central in saying that the Minister should enforce it by regulation. Those good advertisers who have taken part in the conferences which led to the formation of the code have said that all along.
This is, I gather, the view of the advertising industry itself. If it is, surely there can be no objection to the Bill.
The present Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in that same debate, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government:
I have said throughout, and I say again tonight, that if that effort is not successful, if this code does not achieve its object, I shall certainly not hesitate to produce in due course other means, because in one way or another I am determined to get rid of undesirable clutter …
Those were the words of the Minister, two years ago.
As the hon. Member for Ashford has already mentioned, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I should certainly expect to see results from the voluntary code within two years …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 982–5.]
It is because those results have not materialised that the hon. Member is introducing his Bill. Had they materialised, had we had the degree of control which was expected from the Regulations, there would have been no need for the Bill and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashford would have been delighted. But the Regulations have failed.
We have a beautiful countryside still, in spite of the advertisers and in spite of the speculative builders, a countryside of which all of us are proud. Let us see that we do our best to protect it.

11.51 a.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on introducing the Bill, and I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for

Ealing South (Mr. Batsford), who originally inspired it, but who, for certain reasons, has not been able to present it himself.
I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford about our towns and countryside. He spoke of our towns as places which many of us are tempted to desert as soon as we can. That may be so in the London area and in some of our industrial zones, but in other parts of England, certainly in my constituency, we have small towns where, I think it is true to say, our objects are very different. What we are trying to do is to attract people to live in those small towns, to appreciate them and to make them places that are, and will be, as they have been in the past, a delight for others to visit.
I refer, for example, to Ludlow, which is known the world over as a beautiful small town. Another town in my constituency is Bridgnorth. Here we are within range of what is called the Midland conurbation and we are conscious of the danger that is bound to exist to a small town so situated. It is an encouraging fact that the inhabitants of Bridgnorth have themselves started a civic trust to preserve the beauty of their town.
The battle on this front has to be fought in many ways. There are innumerable problems in preserving the beauty of our small towns and all efforts can be defeated if advertisers are allowed to placard the small shops with the type of advertisement against which the Bull is directed. I therefore give it my earnest and hearty support.
My hon. Friend said that this might be regarded as a question of whether the man who knows best is the man in Whitehall or the man in Bristol. We should not lose sight of the fact, however, that what the Regulations are doing, by amending them, is to put the whole of the onus not on the man in Whitehall or on the man in Bristol. We are putting the onus on the man in Maidstone, in Lewes, in Winchester, or, in my case, the man in Shrewsbury; that is to say, our local planning authorities, and, as a member of my own local planning authority, I am increasingly conscious of the burden which this involves.
As we are discussing the Bill, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his attention to this steadily increasing burden, because the bigger the burden becomes the more difficult, obviously, it is for our planning authorities to carry out the policy that we all wish to see carried out and, at the same time, to be fair to those who might suffer from it.
As is emphasised in the Bill, it is not aimed against advertisers in general. It is a Bill which should, we hope, encourage advertisers of the right kind at the same time as carrying out what we all hope to see. I have great pleasure in giving hearty support to the Bill.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on the great lucidity and logic of his argument in support of the Bill, and, indeed, the great sincerity with which he put it forward. It was all the more commendable because, in my view, it is a bad Bill. Because I wish to oppose it, I must at once declare an interest as being concerned in an advertising agency. I assure hon. Members, however, that the sort of advertisement of which my hon. Friend spoke does not normally pass through the hands of advertising agencies. I am far more concerned from another viewpoint as a vice-president of the National Chamber of Trade, which represents 800,000 small shopkeepers who, if the Bill were passed, would suffer severe hardship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has tried to limit the Bill to a certain extent, but he must stand by the wording which he has put before the House. I find it quite impossible to limit it to that extent. The Bill has a rather grandiose title of "Protection of Amenity Bill", but my hon. Friend restricted his arguments to something of an attack on the advertisers of branded goods and, in particular, their method of advertising on fascia boards. He said that the endeavour of his Bill was to stop the swamping of the shops by advertisements of branded goods which shopkeepers sell in those shops.
I find difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument to the extent that it is objectionable to have the words

"Players Please" on a fascia board whereas it is not objectionable to have the words "John Jones", or whoever runs the shop, or even "Marks & Spencer" or "Woolworth". I do not think that I am putting my hon. Friend's argument unfairly, but he did not indicate exactly the distinction between them and why he thought one was objectionable and the other was not.
I should like to state in a little more detail the effect of the existing law and how I understand the Bill would change it. As hon. Members know, to display any advertisement—I am speaking generally—requires planning permission. That comes under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1960, which states:
No advertisement may be displayed without consent granted by the local planning authority or by the Minister on application in that behalf … or deemed by virtue of the next following paragraph to be granted.
So, any advertisement showing to the outside of a shop must either have express consent or must have "deemed" consent.
In the next paragraph of the Regulations, deemed consent is defined in these terms:
Consent shall be deemed to be granted for any advertisement displayed in accordance with a provision of these regulations whereby advertisements of that description may be displayed without express consent.
To find what advertisements may be displayed without express consent, one turns to Regulation 12, which begins:
Advertisements of the following Classes may be displayed without express consent …
Class IV, which is the class which my hon. Friend seeks by his Bill to alter, includes
Advertisements displayed on business premises wholly with reference to all or any of the following matters …
These are the ones which are allowed to be shown without express consent.
the business or other activity carried on, the goods sold or services provided, and the name and qualifications of the person carrying on such business or activity or supplying such goods or services, on those premises.
There is a provision about the overall area which may or may not be covered by such advertisements.
Before dealing with the alteration which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford wishes to make, I want to refer


to the method by which these "deemed consent" advertisements can be challenged. If a local planning authority considers that any advertisement of this kind is offensive, it has the power, under these Regulations, to challenge the shopkeeper and to make him apply for express consent. That comes under Regulation 8, which lays down that the planning authority can require the advertiser to apply for express consent, and, if he does not get it, to remove the advertisement.
How many premises are affected by this deemed consent? The best estimate one can give is that about 750,000 small shopkeepers are advertising branded goods which they sell in their shops. If the law were altered in this way, they would all be affected, for the law would be that if they advertised branded goods which they were selling on the premises, they must apply for express consent.

Dr. Barnet Stross: Has the hon. Gentleman the figures with him? It would be interesting to know how many shopkeepers out of the 750,000 are using fascia boards for advertisement of branded goods being sold on their premises.

Mr. Page: I have not that figure, but I will show later how the Committee administering the voluntary code has tried to deal with this.
At the moment this Bill was passed, about 750,000 shopkeepers would be offending against the Regulations. Indeed, they would be offending perhaps half a dozen times over, because it may be that they are advertising as many as half a dozen branded goods. My hon. Friend says that he does not wish to be so drastic but that he realises that the Bill may be so drastic. He is concerned particularly with the fascia boards. Indeed, the Regulations were concerned with them. Regulation 12 (2) says that
Consent deemed to be granted"—
in the way previously stated in the Regulations—
shall be subject to the following conditions..
These conditions are that the letters must not be more than 2 ft. 6 ins. high and the advertisement itself shall not

be above 15 feet from the ground. Thus, there are already some fairly detailed controls within the Regulations themselves. My hon. Friend cannot complain that these fascia boards are projecting high above premises or that the lettering is large and garish because, under the Regulations, such height and size of lettering can be prevented. The complaint must surely be only about the depth of the fascia boards, over which there is no control.

Mr. Deedes: Will my hon. Friend touch on the matter of colour?

Mr. Page: It may be that, in certain cases, glaring colours have been chosen. I will deal with colour later and with how it is starting to be dealt with by those administering the code.
As I understand it, it is only the advertising of branded goods in this way about which the complaint is made. One should realise that it is sometimes a lot more useful to the customer to see the goods advertised on the fascia boards than the name of the shopkeeper. I wonder whether, in elections, my hon. Friend puts his name in larger letters than that of his party or his party's name in larger letters than his own. It is very often more useful to the customer to know the brand than to know that it happens to be John Jones who is selling it.
It was about four or five years ago that the then Minister of Housing and Local Government was minded to control outdoor advertising by rather strict Regulations—much stricter than the present Regulations. I think that he was satisfied then that, had he gone ahead with that strict control, it would have been impracticable, expensive to enforce and administer, would have caused a great hardship to the small shopkeepers and businesses, and, because of the difficulty of administering it, would have brought the law into some disrepute.
As an alternative to strict control, therefore, he encouraged the industry—both the advertisers and the owners of the advertising sites—the local authorities and the amenity societies to get together and see whether this could not be done voluntarily. Indeed, it is a great satisfaction to all of those concerned in this that a voluntary code emerged from that. A consultative committee was set


up by those concerned—advertisers, local authorities and societies—and the result was the "Code of Standards for Advertising on Business Premises" which came into operation in April, 1960. As my hon. Friend has said, the code deals with the fascia board type of advertising in some detail. At least it gives it fairly objective treatment, to use his own words. The Minister at the time said that he hoped some result would come from the code within two years. As that two-year period is up at the end of this month, we should look back and see what the Consultative Committee has done.
The first phase was to distribute the code. That was quite a massive job. It had to be distributed to the Press, to local authorities, amenity associations, trade associations, chambers of trade, chambers of commerce and to many retailers and advertisers and their associations. It became obvious that mere exhortation and education by the code would not be sufficient, and in January, 1961, the Advertisers' Working Committee was set up as the executive to caary out the code. At the same time, the Circulation Managers' Committee of the newspapers and periodicals undertook the job of clearing up the clutter of the loose newspaper boards—the leaning boards—and they have been most successful in getting rid of them.
The Advertisers' Working Committee in March, 1961, carried out a very interesting operation at Maid-stone. That test anti-clutter operation showed a very high degree of voluntary cooperation between the shopkeepers and the advertisers. The working committee, encouraged by the results of that test, has been meeting very regularly in order to try to achieve its two-year target. It had to take things by stages and so it has concentrated in those two years on the rural areas; that is to say, it has omitted any towns with a population of over 50,000. It realised what a massive operation the whole matter would be and, therefore, it decided to concentrate on one aspect at the outset. This rural area phase has been for all practical purposes completed, and the clearance of clutter from the rural areas is very impressive.
What has been the plan of that campaign? First and foremost, it is to get

co-operation between the working committee and the planning authorities. A fairly close co-operation has been built up between the committee and the county planning officers, not just on an ad hoc basis but on a long-term basis, so that the committee and the planning officers could continually be considering whether the voluntary code was being carried out. The working committee alone has removed 73,000 signs and re-sited 15,000. The figure of 830 relating to fascia boards has been mentioned, but I wanted to mention those quite impressive figures relating to normal signs, the sort which appear outside small shops.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. Member know the number that has been put up? Eight hundred and thirty have been removed but how many have been put up to replace them? It would be interesting to have those figures.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked me that just now and I replied that I did not know the number of new fascia boards put up. At the moment I am dealing with the general clutter of advertisements and not with fascia boards. I said that 73,000 of these had been removed and 15,000 had been re-sited. In addition, the Newspapers and Periodicals Committee has removed 36,000 of the loose leaning boards and has now had all the other fixed. That is one of the conditions on which they supply them. Taking all the efforts into account, not just what the members of the working committee have done, I am given the figure of 200 advertisements a day, over the last six months, having been removed or resited. Whether hon. Members agree that the committee is doing a right job or not, it certainly has not been lazy or slack over it. It has been exercising its energies to try to carry out the code. In doing so it does not have only to consult the national advertisers. That is a fairly easy job. But there are a lot of local advertisers who have to be informed of the code and persuaded to comply with it.
I come to the question of fascia boards and branded goods. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked a Question about this in January, 1961, which was just at the time when the working committee was being set up.


One cannot have it both ways. These Regulations were primarily concerned with the removal of clutter. It may well be that if we remove a lot of little advertisements they will be replaced by rather more effective larger advertisements provided that the size of those advertisements do not breach the Regulations.
The object of the working committee is to improve the look of shops and it may be that they can be improved by reducing the clutter and providing one larger advertisement. That advertisement may be provided by those who sell branded goods. There is nothing new, as my hon. Friend said, in advertising by means of fascia boards. However, when criticism was received by the Advertisers' Working Committee about fascia boards, all fascias which had been erected recently were inspected. A complete exercise was carried out of inspecting all those which had been erected recently. It was out of the recently erected ones that the figure of 830 arose. Eight hundred and thirty new ones were modified or removed. I cannot give the figures for those which were erected before that time, but the working committee is continuing with its work and trying to keep track of those now being erected and about which any complaint is made.

Dr. Stross: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what answer was given to the letter sent by Lord Luke referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deeds) and what answer did he receive to his objection to advertising on fascia boards?

Mr. Page: I have not seen the answer to that letter. I intended to mention the fact that the letter was sent because I wanted to show the attitude of the committee towards this and that the committee is alive to it. In short, the voluntary code is working but the task is great. We have only given it a chance to run for a couple of years and the working committee was not set up until some nine months after the code came into effect and it was realised that there had to be some executive body to try to carry it out.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member is arguing that if the policy of the voluntary code and the activities of

the working committee are fully carried out this Bill will become unnecessary, or would he say that if the operation of the code were applied universally throughout the country he would then have no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Page: I am pleading with my hon. Friend to let the voluntary code operate. I am endeavouring to show the House that it has operated as well as one could expect up to the present. There is every prospect that it can enforce the code and it is better to deal with things voluntarily than compulsorily, especially as my hon. Friend said that we cannot concentrate legislation on one particular point of complaint. He has had to phrase the Bill in a very wide may thereby affecting a very great number of shopkeepers adversely, catching in his net, I suppose, ninety-nine for the one he really wants to catch. Therefore, I do not think that legislation is the right vehicle for this.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in carrying out the code many men have been employed in re-siting and removing existing advertisements. This has been paid for by the companies concerned, whereas if this had been in any way compulsory, a huge administrative staff would have been necessary to carry it out, there would have been claims for compensation and it would have been done at considerable expense to the Exchequer.
It is true that this working committee is a committee of advertisers. They are concerned to improve the appearance of shop-front advertising and not to curtail this source of shopping information. I say that quite frankly. I believe that my hon. Friend's speech today will greatly assist them in doing that. He has pointed out where faults lie, and the direction in which the working committee can proceed, but his Bill discards the voluntary system altogether after two years' trial.
I believe that the Bill, if an Act, would create enormous administrative expense. I believe that it would create tremendous resentment among shopkeepers against their local council who would be trying to enforce such an Act against them. I believe that it would cause shopkeepers immense hardship because to a great extent they rely on nationally advertised goods. I believe that in that respect it


would be another blow at small shopkeepers who are suffering enough already from the encroachment of the supermarket and that type of store. I believe that if the Bill were passed in its present form it would cause great inconvenience to the shopper and to the person who wishes to give his custom to the smaller shops. I hope, therefore, that either my hon. Friend will withdraw the Bill, or that the House will refuse to give it a Second Reading.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I, first, say something about the form of the Bill and then deal with its merits? The form seems to be extraordinarily novel and inconvenient. I do not recall any other occasion on which a Private Member's Bill has been used to amend Regulations made under an Act of Parliament.
I may be wrong about that, but this seems almost an abuse of the facilities given by the House to Private Members' legislation, because one has to remember that this privilege of securing a place in the Ballot is much sought after and highly cherished, and, therefore, I think that all Members have a duty, if they are successful in the Ballot, to select for the topic of the Bill something which is not only of general interest—and I concede that this matter is of general interest—but something which is relevant for legislation by this House. This is not entirely a technical point, and it is worthy of the attention of the House.

Mr. Deedes: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the more one has delegated legislation, and the more one passes empowering Acts of Parliament, the more one is likely to be compelled to do this in the way I have done it?

Mr. Fletcher: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will try to explain why.
Legislation has its place, and subordinate legislation also has its place. The Bill seeks to amend some consolidating regulations, namely, Statutory Instruments 1960/695, which were made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government pursuant to the powers entrusted to him under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The empowering provisions of that Act were in

Sections 31, 32 and 111, and pursuant to the powers contained in the Act, Regulations were made from time to time. Subsequently, in 1960, largely at the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and others, they were consolidated.
The Bill seeks to amend one small section of an amending Regulation, and I ask myself what would be the effect of the Bill being passed. If the Bill were enacted, and one gave effect to its terms literally, some Regulations would in future have to be laid in a different way. But this would not affect the Minister's power in any way. He could, the next day, make an order reinstating the Regulations which the Bill is seeking to amend. Therefore, this is not the right way to do it. This cannot be an effective way to do it. It is not for me to instruct hon. Members how they should draft their Bills, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to give effect to the result he mentioned in his speech he should try, by an Act of Parliament, to limit and circumscribe the powers of the Minister under Sections 31, 32 and 111 of the 1947 Act.
I do not want to weary the House with the details, but the mechanics of this seem to be important. Sections 31 and 32 are the overriding provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which give the Minister power to make Regulations controlling advertisements. Some Regulations have been made. When those Regulations were laid, it was open to the hon. Gentleman to pray against them, but he did not do so. Nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), whose name is on the Bill. I am sorry that because of an important engagement in Grimsby my hon. Friend cannot be here today. It is worth while pointing out that no steps were taken by any of the promoters of the Bill to raise this point when the Regulations were laid before the House.
It seems to me, therefore, that even if the Bill in this form were enacted it would not in any way deprive the Minister of the powers given to him by the Act of Parliament to make different Regulations. They might vary in different particulars. They might not go as far as the promoters want. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do something effective in this regard, he


should produce a Bill limiting the powers of the Minister to make Regulations under Sections 31 and 32. He could easily have drafted a Bill as an addendum to Section 31 of the Act, saying, in effect, "provided that no regulations shall be made which do this, that or the other", and then there would have been complete legislative authority to try to achieve what the hon. Member wants.
That is why it seems to me that the form of the Bill, apart from anything else, is open to the most serious objection, and is vitiated by the failure of the hon. Gentlemen to understand the difference between legislation enacted by this House and subordinate legislation produced by a Minister of the Crown under an Act of Parliament making Regulations that are subject to certain parliamentary control.
That would seem to be the right way to do it. If the hon. Member were serious in seeking to achieve effective legislation in this field I should have thought that would have been the only way he could have done so. If he had taken that course he could have produced a Bill to secure his object without involving the unnecessary consequences to which the hon. Member for Crosby has referred and which, I gather, the hon. Member for Ashford does not wish to be produced by the Bill.
I wanted to make this protest, because I regard the Bill as being defective in form and unlikely to fulfil its objectives, even in the event of the House agreeing with its motives. Other hon. Members have Private Member's Bills awaiting discussion—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Abse), for example—and there are other Private Member's Bills queueing up on the Order Paper.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not the hon. Member agree that the real defect at the moment is that local authorities have no power, because practically all the power is vested in the Minister?

Mr. Fletcher: I was about to deal with the merits of the Bill. I do not appear to have convinced the hon. Member of what I was trying to argue, which was that, assuming the whole House

desires to achieve the objectives advocated by the hon. Member for Ashford, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, it seems particularly unfortunate in that this vehicle is the wrong means of setting about it, because it will not produce the desired result.
I was pointing out that it would have been quite easy, with a little forethought, to have produced a Bill which was an enactment of Parliament for all time and which curtailed the power of the Minister to make what the hon. Member for Ashford regards as offensive and objectionable Regulations.
So far, I have been talking only about the form and mechanics of this legislation—

Mr. John Wells: I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member about the form of the Bill, but I should like to ask him one question. He said that a Prayer was not laid against the Regulations when they were made. Does he, with his wide experience of the House, recollect more than one occasion on which a Prayer has ever been successful—and that success being due only to the great skill of hon. Members on this side of the House? I am speaking of recent years.

Mr. Fletcher: My experience is rather longer than that of the hon. Member, For his information, I can tell him that I am aware of some other occasions on which Prayers have been successful. Other Prayers which have been carried against the Government of the day have been promoted by Members on both sides of the House. Further, there have been many other occasions on which, although a Prayer has not been successful, it has caused the Minister to withdraw certain Regulations because of the arguments put forward in the discussion of the Prayer.
The House cannot amend Regulations, but it has been able to object to a certain paragraph of a Regulation, and to secure the withdrawal of the Regulation and its substitution by another Regulation omitting the offending paragraph. I am sure that the experience of the hon. Member for Crosby is the same as mine.
The powers given to this House to control subordinate legislation, limited


though they are, have been used effectively in the past on some occasions. It may be argued that they are not as effective as they could be, but that is not the point. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Ashford seems inadvertently to have gone out of his way to confuse what the House can do, when it chooses to enact legislation, by attempting to amend the Regulations of the Minister.
On reflection, I am sure that he will agree that his objective would have been far more likely to be achieved if he had sought to amend an Act of Parliament by limiting the powers of the Minister, in certain respects, than it is at the moment, when his Bill merely attempts to amend Regulations made by the Minister. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby, at least, will agree that there is some force in my argument.

Mr. Graham Page: I agree that there is some force in it—but the hon. Member must realise where is argument is leading. He is asking for private Members' Regulations days.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not asking for that; I am asking for more care to be taken in the presentation of Private Members' Bills which, so far as I can judge, command the support of many hon. Members. That is why I say it is a pity that the form in which the Bill comes before us should be so defective.
I now turn to the merits of the Bill. I have listened to part of the debate, and I sympathise with the objectives which the hon. Member and the promoters of the Bill have in view. I am sure that all those who have regard for the appearance and well-being of our streets, whether in rural districts or in populated cities, are anxious to see the imposition of effective control of advertisements in order that their vulgarity should be removed, and that they should comply and conform with the general views of the public in relation to amenity, decency, order, tidiness, and so forth.
Although I have no experience in the matter, one way or the other, I have no doubt, as the hon. Member for Crosby tells us, that the working party and the other bodies concerned with the subject—including the one over which Lord Luke presides—have been carrying on a useful and vigorous campaign which has produced worth-while and deserving results.

We would all wish to encourage that campaign. I am not in a position to judge whether the situation is better dealt with by allowing the voluntary code to continue for a time or by giving local authorities greater power. I should have thought that the two methods were not inconsistent.
That is why I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby. I could not follow where his argument was leading. At one time I thought that he was arguing that these voluntary bodies and working parties, and this voluntary code, were achieving such commendable progress that if they were allowed a little more time to fulfil all their objectives no legislation would be required. But if that was the burden of his argument it seemed to me that we might draw the diametrically opposite conclusion and say that if this voluntary work went on so successfully the hon. Member for Crosby and those who agree with him could not possibly have any objection to local authorities having powers to do what these organisations are doing voluntarily.
That is why I asked where the hon. Member's argument was leading. In logic, it seemed to me to lead to the conclusion that at some date the hon. Member would not be able to resist an appropriate Bill of the kind which the hon. Member for Ashford, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby all desire.

Dr. Stross: There is another point which has to be taken into consideration. However much we like to believe in the use of the voluntary code, however much support all of us would wish to give to it, if it appears to us that some manufacturers—particularly one or two of those mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—ignore representations made to them by the advertisers' committee which set up the code, we must take some further action; for in this respect the code will have failed.

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree. It seems to me a fair answer to what the hon. Member for Crosby was saying. One need not in any way decry the progress made by his working party of voluntary organisations. But it seems to me—I do not


speak with any great knowledge of the subject, but merely as a citizen who goes about seeing advertisements in various places, and seeing whether I find them pleasing or displeasing or offensive, and so on—that as a matter of logic my hon. Friend's argument is insoluble.
However successful a voluntary campaign may be, and good luck to it, there are bound always to be some "black sheep," some "back-sliders", who will not conform or respond either to pressure of public opinion or the exhortations of their own industry. They can be brought into line only if in the background there are statutory powers to deal with the matter.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: Is it not the fact that these necessary powers already exist under the Regulations as they stand, through the challenge procedure and in the overriding powers of the Minister under Regulation 13? Where it proved necessary to apply those underlying powers to deal with refractory persons who would not comply with the code, surely there would be agreement and co-operation between industry and the authorities in applying the code.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member may be right. Probably he knows more about this matter than I do, although I sought to inform myself.
In answer to the hon. Member's suggestion about adequate powers, I would say that my attention, in my capacity as one of the vice-presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporations, has been drawn to this very aspect of the matter. From a letter which I received from Sir Harold Banwell, the secretary of that Association, it is obvious that the Association does not think that the existing powers are adequate, and Sir Harold is in a position to know.
On the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the existing powers, I think that I should quote from the letter I received from Sir Harold Banwell, on 5th March:
Many members of the Association are becoming concerned at the increasing number of advertisements which are being displayed on small shops, and whilst not wishing to be unduly restrictive in relation to advertisements which genuinely fulfil a need they feel that

they are handicapped in trying to protect the amenities of a town by the freedom granted for various kinds of advertising of which sponsored advertisements on fascia boards form a substantial part. The Association hopes accordingly that you will see your way to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
It is quite obvious that so far as they are in a position to form an opinion the local authorities consider that their existing powers are inadequate, and I should have thought that they were in a better position to know that than anybody. The view of the local authorities is definitely that the powers are not adequate and to that extent I think that it is a reply to the hon. Member, and an aspect of the matter which might induce any hon. Members in doubt about their attitude to the Bill to give it their support. Although I have already drawn attention to the defects in the Bill, probably we have to make the best use of it that we can as it stands. Those who feel as do my hon. Friend and myself may consider that is the best thing which we can do in the circumstances.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that the hon. Member would go on to develop the point in the letter from Sir Harold Banwell about why these powers are inadequate. Some of us are not always prepared to take a mere statement, even, with respect, from Sir Harold, just like that. Cannot the hon. Gentleman develop it a little further and tell us where the challenge procedure fails?

Mr. Fletcher: I think that I can. The letter also states:
If the Bill is passed, the prior consent of the local planning authority would be required before advertisements relating to goods sold in such premises could be placed upon the premises and in granting consent the local planning authority could attach conditions for the protection of amenity.
That seems to me a reasonable attitude to take. One knows from experience that if something cannot be done without consent, although in the majority of cases consent would normally be granted, the mere power to withhold consent also carries with it the power to attach conditions to consent being granted. That operates in the whole sphere of town planning applications of various kinds.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: This is a very important


matter. It seems to me almost the hub of the matter. If the local authorities wish to take power to refuse permission following an application, because of the damage which the granting of an application would do to the amenities of the district, I do not think that they would be taking a greater power than they possess under the existing Regulations, particularly Regulation 8 where it states:
… where it appears expedient to the local planning authority so to do, they may serve on any person displaying an advertisement with consent deemed to be granted … a notice requiring application for express consent for the continuance of such display to be made …
I should have thought that that would cover it.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that would cover it, if It applied to a judgment under Class IV of paragraph 12.

Mr. MacArthur: With respect, I think that it does. That is my understanding.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member said that this may well be the hub of the matter. It may well be an important matter, I am not saying that it is the hub of the matter. But it is a relevant consideration. We must take it in stages. The first question is whether the provisions in Regulation 8 apply to the provisions in Class IV of Regulation 12.

Mr. Bishop: I apologise for interrupting again, but this is an important point which it is necessary to get clear. The answer is in Regulation 12 (1). At the very beginning of the Regulation it states that the whole of the Regulation is subject to the
power of the local planning authority, by notice served under Regulation 8 of these regulations, to require application for express consent to be made.
So in any case where they are dissatisfied with an advertisement on a shop, by the challenge procedure they could require an express consent to be made and so bring it under the procedure of Regulation 8.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but whether that is generally accepted as the proper way in which to construe Regulations 8 and 12, when read together, I do not know. I have not sufficient experience to judge, but I should have thought that there was at least some doubt about it.

Mr. Deedes: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that there is no doubt at all that what has been said is correct. The whole point is that the procedure is tremendously protracted and cumbersome.

Dr. Stross: I hope to be able to deal with this matter briefly when I have an opportunity of addressing the House, but, of course, hon. Members opposite are quite right, I think, in two ways. Their views about the machinery is correct.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) is quite right in his objection to this form of machinery, because it is so tedious and difficult, but, in practice, since these Regulations came before us there has been a number of appeals to the Minister who is the appellate authority, and it is the experience which local authorities have had with the Minister which allows me to find great objections to the piece of machinery which now exists.

Mr. Fletcher: To conclude what I was saying, whatever may be the correct interpretation of Regulations 8 and 12, it is quite obvious from the views expressed by the Association of Municipal Corporations that it does not feel that the existing powers are adequate, and that even though there are some existing powers they could be strengthened. The real position with which we are dealing is this. At the moment, there is considerable complaint throughout the country about the abuse of fascia board advertisements. We all agree on that, and we are anxious to take more effective steps to deal with the abuse.
Therefore, without detracting in any way from what the hon. Gentleman has said about the efforts, and the success which has so far attended those efforts, of voluntary organisations, whatever be the fate of his Bill and whatever be its effectiveness, I hope, at any rate, that this debate will do a great deal to strengthen the efforts of all these voluntary organisations in ridding the countryside and our towns of the disgrace that still prevails in some parts as a result of the abuse of fascia board advertisements.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on the very considerable advertising of his own case, but I hope that all he wants to do is to go so far as to advertise his case and not seriously to press for the Bill to be read a Second time. I hope, too, that he is bringing the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary so that he may realise the difficulties which have arisen, and arisen, in particular, because of the consents given by the Minister in the cases on which appeals have taken place and where the local authority concerned has not been supported by the Minister.
In my view, the Bill is really taking a sledge hammer to catch a Whale, and in trying to catch that whale my hon. Friend is hammering an awful lot of minnows—no less than three-quarters of a million of them.

Mr. Richard Marsh: In all decency, is there not some limit to which one can mix metaphors on a Friday morning?

Mr. Allason: I am trying to advertise my own case, but, of course, I could not hope to be so able as my hon. Friend. He spoke about fascia boards, and the debate has tended to continue on the subject of fascia boards, but I do not believe that this is the end of the matter at all. Indeed, my hon. Friend admitted as much when he said that certain other people should be caught. I want to speak for the three-quarter of a million minnows who are going to get caught. Class IV, on page 12, which is to be amended, states:
Advertisements displayed on business premises wholly with reference to all or any of the following matters: the business or other activity carried on, the goods sold or services provided, and the name and qualifications of the person carrying on such business or activity or supplying such goods or services, on those premises.
Under the Bill we are going to leave out that part of Class IV which deals with goods, so we can have the name and address and the business carried on, the services provided, but not the goods sold. But Class IV says:
Advertisements displayed on business premises,

and that does not relate only to fascia boards. I suggest that it relates just as much to advertisements inside a shop as outside a shop. It seems to me that even if a small notice is put up right inside the shop, even on the counter, but which can be seen from outside the shop, that comes under "displayed on business premises." Even if some dispensation is given on that, when we get to the lettering on those little advertisements in the window, they do not come under "displayed on business premises." Reference is made to the external face of the building, and the external face might be held to be the outside of, say, a plate-glass window.
To take the small Hovis advertisement, it may be that if the lettering is displayed on the outside of the window it will be covered by the Bill, whereas it would be exempted if stuck on the inside of the window. I should like to hear a little more about this. It is quite clear that this is going to affect pretty well every shop in the country.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: That is the idea.

Mr. Allason: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman wishes even advertisements inside shops to be forbidden.

Mr. Lipton: I take it that the idea of the Bill is that it should apply to all shops and business premises, and that is what I meant.

Mr. Allason: Yes, I am saying that the matter is going beyond fascias down to every little notice of every sort which, probably, would be held to be not objectionable. The consequence would be that every single shop in the country would have to scrap every type of advertisement and not show whether it sold Lipton's tea or anyone else's tea.
Then, again, we have to look at the way that the Bill is drafted. If we remove the goods sold we can still use the services provided. What about an umbrella hanging outside an umbrella shop? Would that be regarded as advertising umbrellas for sale and, therefore, as objectionable, or would it be regarded as advertising that umbrellas could be repaired on the premises and that, therefore, that was a service and could be accepted?
I can see that people are going to get round the fascia board point. For instance, there could be an enormous fascia displaying "Players Please" and in small letters down below, "Get your supplies here," That would be advertising a service, not advertising goods. It might well be that this proposed amendment would completely nullify itself because we should be trying to deal with people by pinning them down by Regulations instead of getting them to approve a voluntary code of conduct.
I do not know if hon. Members realise that this would affect every petrol station in the country. If there were a notice merely saying "Petrol" that would be offering goods for sale, but if it were a petrol station it would be offering services and presumably that would be permitted. Therefore, every individual notice at a petrol station would have to have the word "station" added to the word "petrol" in order to comply with the regulations. Every petrol pump would be covered and each one would need a single application so as to be exempt from the Regulations. Newspaper contents boards would also be covered and there would have to be separate applications for every display of a newspaper board.
The main danger of this Bill is that it has a very attractive title. I am afraid that hon. Members who have not had the advantage of listening to the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I hope the other powerful speeches which will follow mine, might vote for it on the basis that it is so widely drawn that the whole of what is objected to can be taken out in Committee and an entirely different set of Clauses introduced. That would be a very poor reason for allowing the Bill a Second Reading.
So far as I can see, this would have one advantage. I always think it useful for advertising that ones' constituents should learn the name of their Member of Parliament. One has only to produce a Bill which will affect the interests of a large number of constituents in an adverse manner—I hope I have said sufficient to show that it is a very adverse manner—to make them take the trouble to learn who their M.P. is so that they might write to him To that extent some

hon. Members will get some benefit from this Measure, but in general I think it is completely futile legislation which is produced in a wrong way.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Member arguing that to permit the advertising of Lipton's tea in Brixton will help my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)?

Mr. Allason: Yes. I say that we cannot draw the line. If one is to prohibit advertising Hovis bread or Lipton's tea, the little unobjectionable advertisements, one has to go right inside the shop where there may be a little display card saying "Cadbury's Chocolate". That would have to be pasted over because it would be displaying an advertisement on the premises.

Mr. Frederick Gough: Perhaps it would be better described as, "Words, not deeds."

Mr. Allason: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
I think that this proposed legislation would be carrying things much too far in a laudable attempt to bring some pressure on certain manufacturers who in the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford have transgressed in relation to fascia boards. The existing Regulations deal precisely with that matter. I hope that the House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I shall not go into all the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). Otherwise I should be accused of advertising certain products to the disadvantage of others. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has rendered a useful and valuable public service in bringing this Bill before the House.
I wish that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and others who are doubtful about this Bill could take a walk, or a drive, along Kennington Road and have a look at two shops which are quite near to Kennington Green. Those shops have survived both world wars intact. They probably carry more displayed advertisement per square inch than any other two cigarette and tobacco shops in the whole of London. They are fascinating in a revolting kind of way. I wish I had


photographs of them to show to hon. Members. Those two shops by themselves illustrate what a very strong case can be made for the Bill.
My principal object in speaking today is to deal with one aspect of this plague of advertising, particularly on shop premises, which is very topical at the moment. The biggest malefactors in this regard are the tobacco companies. They advertise on shop fronts probably to a greater extent than does any other industry or service. If the Government are favourable towards this Bill they can in a sense kill two birds with one stone. They can help to beautify many streets in large towns and villages while, at the same time, they can do something which the recently published Report by the Royal College of Physicians says that we should do; that is, to restrict advertising of tobacco.
I was particularly interested in that part of the Report which deals with the need to do something about this advertising menace, particularly in regard to cigarette smoking. This Bill provides the Government and local authorities with such an opportunity. Figures which have been published show that in the last year the tobacco companies spent £11 million on advertising. I do not suggest that all that £11 million was spent on posters, billboards and so on displayed outside shop premises, but a certain amount of that vast expenditure was used in that way. When we compare this vast expenditure on advertising which helps to disfigure our towns and villages with the puny counter-advertising, so to speak, done by local authorities and health services generally, we realise what a wonderful opportunity is presented by this Bill to redress the balance.
The figures in the Report by the Royal College of Physicians show that the Central Council for Health Education in 1958–59 spent £1,150 on pamphlets and lectures about smoking. How can any reasonable person contend that this puny expenditure could possibly counteract the vast amount which has been spent by the tobacco companies on advertising, much of it on the shop fronts which disfigure these premises to such a large extent?
Recently, there has been a very steep increase in the expenditure on the

advertising of tobacco. It may well be that in due course every newsagent's and tobacconist's shop in the country will be almost obliterated from view by advertisements asking people to smoke and reminding young people what a glamorous thing it is to smoke and how they can satisfy a social or, indeed, a sexual urge by embarking on the tobacco habit. Anything that we can do to restrict this pernicious form of advertising is worth doing.
For that reason I very cordially support the Bill, because it is not only for the protection and advancement of amenity in town and country; it will do something to remedy what is a black spot on this country's record, namely, the fact that we have the highest death rate from lung cancer in the world. In the past year there were 20,000 deaths from lung cancer. We cannot be proud of that.
This Bill will not only help the protection of amenity, but may—I put it no higher—make some small contribution towards restricting the spate of tobacco advertising which the Report of the Royal College of Physicians shows to be having such disastrous results. The Report indicated that legislation to restrict tobacco advertising would be reasonable and would provide evidence of official acceptance of the reality of the hazard. That, I submit, is a further reason why we should view the Bill with sympathy and it is why I hope that the Government are disposed to take a friendly and sympathetic attitude towards it.
A few moments ago I mentioned the vast amount of money, amounting to £11 million last year, spent by the tobacco companies on advertising. Taking the figures from 1956–60, the total combined cost of the propaganda by the Government and local authorities came to less than £5,000—less than £20 a week. As the Daily Mirror rightly pointed out, the Government might as well have spent twenty farthings. I am not asking today for more money to be spent. All I am doing is to ask the Government to regard the arguments which I have put forward as an additional reason why the Bill should be put on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I join in the congratulations which have been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on the very clear and fair way in which he set out the purposes of the Bill. I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) on his success in the Ballot.
The Long Title of the Bill sets out an objective with which all hon. Members would agree:
to make better provision for the protection and enhancement of amenity in town and country.
We are all anxious to avoid the defacement of buildings and, in particular, I support any Measure which sets out to preserve the beauty of our shrinking countryside. The Long Title of the Bill, therefore, appeals to me, despite its legalistic terms, which, I know, are unavoidable. The Bill can perhaps be described in simple terms as a Measure to stop people from spoiling the view.
I have an interest in this matter in that I am an associate director of an advertising agency. Perhaps I may add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), which is that normally the financial interest of an advertising agency in this form of display advertising is marginal.
Having congratulated my hon. Friend, perhaps I may say that I received the Bill with very modified rapture because on looking at it closely, and studying the Regulations to which it refers, I felt that the Bill went further than was the intention of its sponsors. It should be said again that at present advertisements displayed on business premises which refer to the goods sold there are not subject to control under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1960, unless the local planning authority deems it necessary to exercise the power vested in it under Regulation 8 to which I referred a moment ago in my intervention.
Where it appears expedient to the local planning authority to do so, it may serve a notice requiring application for express consent for the continuance of the advertisement in question. But in broad terms, business premises—and

that includes shops—are free to display advertisements relating to the goods which are sold there.
Clause 1 amends the Regulations which give this freedom to shopkeepers by removing the words "goods sold or" in line 3 and "goods or" in line 5. This change would make it necessary for a retailer to obtain the consent of the local authority or the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government—in Scotland, I presume, that of the local planning authority or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland—before displaying on his premises any advertisement relating to the goods which he sells there.
The word "advertisement" is defined in Part I of the Regulations, where it is stated that
'advertisement' means any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, device or representation, whether illuminated or not".
This wide definition covers every kind of display advertisement used by retailers. Further, the definition of business premises in paragraph (3) of Regulation 12 covers not only shops, but every kind of commercial undertaking, such as garages, public houses, and restaurants.

Mr. John Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) pointed out that this applies to branded goods and that there is no objection to the shop advertising the sale of tobacco and newspapers. All that one must not say under the Bill is the kind of tobacco and the names of the newspapers.

Mr. MacArthur: I appreciate that. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The effect of the Bill would be very much wider in terms of removing advertisements than I think is my hon. Friend's basic intention. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend made it clear that he is not waging a fight against advertising or anything of that kind.
There is no need to go over again the well-trodden path of argument about the place of advertising in society. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that all good things can run to excess. I agree that abuse should be suppressed. Indeed, I supported a small Bill of this nature


recently, but it went, in the end, to join the little queue of Measures which are waiting for the Report of the Molony Committee.
It is important that in our anxiety to suppress abuse we should not also suppress the enthusiasm of those who engage in selling. Two weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made a very interesting and useful speech on this theme. All of us, whether we have direct interests in advertising or not, are very anxious that the undesirable aspects of advertising, which, of course, exist, although they are often greatly exaggerated in the House, should be caused to disappear.
We sometimes tend to give the impression that it is noble to produce things, but somehow perhaps ignoble to try to sell the product. In this country we live by trade. We must accept that the end process of trade is selling. I hope that we shall not give the impression that any of us here are against the selling on which production and employment depend.
My hon. Friend spoke of sponsored fascia panels. I agree that the Bill would dispose of these. It would dispose of the two or three sinners, but it would also suppress the far greater number of innocents. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby paid tribute to the work of the working committee which is giving effect to the code of standards for advertising on business premises. He showed how effectively this has worked. He also showed how effectively the advertising business itself can introduce and operate means of self-control. Seventy-three thousand signs removed and 15,000 re-sited is a remarkable achievement after so short a time.
The most dramatic single result was perhaps the test operation in Maidstone. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to Maidstone. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) in his place. The result of this short operation was that Maidstone was thoroughly cleaned up, if I may use that phrase in this context. This process has now been extended into the country and into smaller towns, with remarkable results. We are told that the newspaper and periodical industry

has removed 36,000 contents boards, which I always find very objectionable. I am glad that they are going. The advertising business itself has done much to tidy up the untidiness of our country.
Do we really need to go as far as the Bill proposes? There are about 750,000 shops in Britain. Between them they must carry millions of signs. The Bill would make it necessary for each of these shopkeepers to apply for permission to display every one of the signs and displays which he carries on his premises. I cannot believe that this is the intention, because the task involved would be colossal, not only for the shopkeepers, but for the local authorities, which would face a staggering responsibility.

Dr. Stross: Is not the hon. Member under a misapprehension when he says that three-quarters of a million shopkeepers must now go to the local authority, or will have to, to obtain consent for displaying signs on their fascia boards? This cannot be so. It can only be the case, if the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) succeeds in getting a Second Reading for the Bill and it is later enacted, that those who advertise branded goods on business premises will have to obtain consent or change their signs.

Mr. MacArthur: Perhaps I have missed the hon. Gentleman's point. The Bill would relate not only to fascia boards, but to the whole surface of shop windows which today carry, especially in small villages, and in the case of the smaller shops, a large number of stickers, banners, and displays of various kinds. The Bill would put a tremendous burden of cost and responsibility on local authorities by requiring that each one of these signs would have to go through a process of application, perhaps inspection, and possibly appeal afterwards. There would not only be a burden in terms of administration but also in terms of cost. The local rates are already high enough.
The main purpose of my hon. Friend was not to suppress the little window stickers and the like, but to get rid of the fascia boards which are used primarily to advertise a brand of product rather than the name of the person who


owns the shop or the nature of the business transacted in the shop. I agree that the indiscriminate use of fascia board in this way can suppress the individuality of retail shops and tend to limit the free competition which we on this side believe should exist between shops.
The work of the advertising business has been referred to several times. From the comments which have been made today it seems clear that there are a small number of non-co-operators in this process. If the non-co-operators continue not to co-operate, pressure should be brought to bear on them, not only with a view to enforcing the good intent of the advertising business, but in the wider interests of the public at large.
Because of this, my hon. Friend has done a very good service in presenting the Bill to the House. I do not support it, because it goes much further than is the basic intention. In any case, I believe that the power needed to dispose of the undesirable type of fascia board already exists in Regulation 8. I may have misunderstood it, because these Regulations are rather like a maze. One has to jump from one to another to follow the theme of the proposition. However, it seems that under Regulation 8 a local planning authority, if it takes objection to a display on a shop, can in a sense override Regulation 12 because it deems it expedient so to do, and require an application to be made for the continued display of the sign. It is desirable that the attention of local planning authorities should be drawn, by means of a circular or whatever the appropriate means may be, to the expediency of requiring applications to be made for the type of display which is the basic cause for the introduction of the Bill.
I hope the Minister will not consider that the Bill is the right way to cure this abuse, but will feel that to achieve the basic objective of the proposed Measure either the existing Regulations are sufficient, or, if not, that a much more modified amendment should be made to them.

1.30 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is apparent from the speeches so far that hon. Members are in favour of the objectives

behind the Bill. We all want to combat ugliness, to improve the countryside and our urban surroundings, for not all of us can escape from the cities and towns and move outside. The desire to improve our surroundings has been clearly shown by hon. Members and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Bats-ford) who, because he has taken a position on the Government Front Bench, unfortunately could not present his own Bill. However, I am sure that we all enjoyed the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) cogently and clearly explained the meaning of this tiny Bill.
Those who have been in the House for some years know that the smaller the Bill the more work is associated with it, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashford has done an enormous amount of work and I am grateful to him. I did not have an hesitation in being a sponsor of the Measure because, like everyone who has spoken, I strongly subscribe to what is being attempted.
The Parliamentary Secretary will have noticed the rush of amenity Bills this Session. This is no accident. It shows the way the wind is blowing. It is a wind of change and we are becoming sensitive to what is happening. We all wish, wherever possible, to improve conditions. Science helps us, as does the quality of paint and the intricacies of architecture. People generally seek this improvement and we are only reflecting their desires. But we are determined not to lay behind those desires, for we wish to improve our environment and to subscribe to anything that will make conditions better than they were before.
The hon. Member for Ashford described the Bill as being small. It is small and modest—but it is drawn in such a way as to do as little harm as possible and to make it certain that no one should say "This is an attack on advertising", because it is not. The hon. Member for Ashford made it clear, and I agree entirely, that if a voluntary code can work, all well and good. I agreed to that when we debated the Regulations on 29th February, 1960. By then we knew that the code was almost ready for distribution. It had not yet been printed but it was ready for the printer.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asked in effect, "Why do you attack the sponsoring of fascia boards for only a particular group of people? Is there any difference between that and having the name Marks and Spencer or Woolworths on a board?" The answer was given earlier by the hon. Member for Ashford when he said that what we really need is diversity and not uniformity. In any case, one does not find a High Street in which every shop bears the name "Marks and Spencer" or "Woolworths". It would be horrible if that were so, but it is equally horrible when one sees highly coloured fascia boards advertising the same kind of branded goods, whether tobacco, margarine or the sort of drink people are supposed to take.
We are only saying that, accepting that there is room for advertising and that local authorities, in the main, like advertising—if it is of the right type and in the right place—the sponsored fascia is an improper advertisement in an improper place. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that it would be a proper advertisement if it were in a proper place—and the fascia board is not a proper place for it.
When we debated the Regulations there were some interesting exchanges before the Minister replied. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the various advertisements of the past, some of which I have referred to, and concluded:
I can only conclude by telling the House of what I have always regarded as the best advertisement ever put up. It was written out, and put up by a school boy who had had some trouble at school. He had the enterprising idea of putting up a notice advertising the school for sale. Having described the buildings in somewhat pungent terms, he concluded, 'And the contents include 20 old masters, suitable for private hanging'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 990.]
I then asked leave to withdraw the Motion.
I said earlier that we felt that as the code was ready for printing we should see if it would work. I did not know, at the time of that debate, what length of trial it should be given and I asked the Minister whether he thought that 18 months or two years would be sufficient. In his reply, the Minister said that we should see how it worked after two years. At that time we knew that the County

Councils' Association agreed that the code should be given a trial. But this was not the case with the Association of Municipal Corporations, for it was not in favour of the voluntary code.
The hon. Member for Crosby mentioned that certain draft Regulations had been considered by the interested parties in 1956 and 1957. The Association of Municipal Corporations was consulted, as was the outdoor advertising industry, on these Regulations. The purpose of the new draft Regulations was to amend the 1948 Regulations and the Association of Municipal Corporations thought that much stricter control was necessary. I think that every thoughtful person, certainly including the Minister, wanted stricter control. The point was how to get it, whether by a voluntary code or by means of Regulations. At that time, I think the hon. Member for Crosby will agree, the outdoor advertisers made strong objections and the Minister, who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, discarded the Regulations in favour of this trial period for the voluntary code.
I should like to quote the views of the A.M.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) made one or two quotations, for he and I are vice-presidents of the A.M.C., as indeed until recently was the Parliamentary Secretary. I will quote the last two paragraphs of the views of the A.M.C.:
We carefully considered drafts of the voluntary code, but in the event found ourselves unable to accede to it: it did nothing to discourage the types of advertising which we considered particularly damaging to amenity, i.e. advertisements on shops above the fascia level, gable end advertising and projecting signs.
It goes on to say:
We have been aware for a long time of the loophole in the 1948 Regulations which Mr. Deedes' Bill would, I think, stop up; i.e. of a manufacturer making available a fascia board bearing a shopkeeper's name and also an advertisement for proprietary goods sold in the shop. We agree that this is a form of advertising which needs to be brought under the consent procedure"—
that is what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was speaking about just now—
rather than to be left as it now is for these boards to be challenged.
That is the difference between consent procedure and the power to challenge, using the right hon. Gentleman as the appellate authority.

Mr. Allason: If the objection is solely to these fascia boards, why is it that the Bill is not drawn in relation to fascia boards? It has been possible to draw the Bill in relation to branded goods and to exclude unbranded goods. Therefore, why not relate the Bill to fascia boards and exclude all the other things? That is my great objection to this Bill.

Dr. Stross: It may be that the term "fascia board" is not in the Regulations. If the hon. Gentleman will study the Regulations and can find the words "fascia board" I shall be glad if he will direct my attention to them.
May I come to the last sentence of Sir Harold Banwell's letter to me:
The use of these fascia boards is spreading, and the Association feels that this Bill, although not going as far as it would desire, is a useful step.
The House should note that last phrase. It does not go as far as the A.M.C. would like but is a useful step. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Member for Ashford, in deploying his argument, has done us a very great service.
On 29th February when we debated the Regulations I asked the Minister some questions and he then made it clear, as I have said, that he would wait for the length of time that we have mentioned, namely, two years. Then he said—and this again is a point that has been made by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken—that local authorities would be retaining their right to challenge advertisements and the Minister would, of course, retain his right to consider appeals on their merits and to dismiss the appeals when he thought that was the right course.
What has happened? Nearly two years have gone, and it is my view, and I believe the view of everybody in the House, that there are some manufacturers who have not abided by the spirit of the voluntary code. That is why we are debating this matter today. It would not have arisen otherwise.
The hon. Member for Ashford quoted from a letter sent by Lord Luke on this very problem. I know of no answer that he ever received. I feel that the tobacco interests in particular, who were the first and worst offenders, although they may not in the end be the worst

offenders, have felt themselves to be in a position to ignore representations made to them by all the sensible and sensitive interests in the advertising profession. Everyone who has studied this problem knows that we have very little to be ashamed of as compared with other countries. That has been made clear this morning. Perhaps we are not as far ahead as the most progressive of all countries, but why should we expect that all at once? We are doing very well, though of course we can do a lot better still.
However, the sponsored fascia board is increasing in numbers. We know who the chief offenders are, and if they are being copied, those who copy their techniques have a perfect right in law to do so. However, we argue that they are being set a very bad example. Because one group of manufacturers have extensive interests and are very wealthy, there is no reason why we in this House should be forced to move against them by legislation merely because they flout a voluntary code. That is what we are discussing today.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member suggested that everyone agrees that there has been defiance of the voluntary code in the case of (these fascia boards. Much has been made of a letter written by Lord Luke and the fact that nobody knows what the reply to that letter was. Surely this was private correspondence. We cannot be expected to be in possession of the original letter or the reply. Is not the reply in effect to be found in the Report of the Consultative Committee which has just been submitted to the Minister? It says:
When it was found that there was increasing criticism of fascia advertising on the grounds that in some cases the fascias did not blend satisfactorily with the appearance of the shop or with its environment, all fascias which had been erected recently were inspected by the companies concerned. Thereafter a total of 830 were either modified or removed altogether. This work continues.
We know the effect of the correspondence, if we do not know the terms of the letter.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having brought out this fact and for mentioning that 830 have been altered or removed. I wonder how many have been erected during that same time. We do not know. Is the number


2,800 or 5,800? When will it stop? However, I will return to this point later.
A little over a year ago I was a member of a deputation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is now Minister of State, Board of Trade, on this very issue. The hon. Member for Ashford was also on that deputation. We went to raise this problem and ask that the Minister should intervene. At first the Parliamentary Secretary was unsure whether we were in the right. He had a file on his table and showed it to us saying, "In some of these cases at least, amenity has not been destroyed by the alteration in the fascia boards. Indeed"—I remember the words—"in some cases it seems as if the scene was improved by them".
I had a much bigger and heavier file than he had, consisting of correspondence from planning officers. When I showed him photographs of the large number of grotesque outrages resulting from fascia board advertising he, like all Parliamentary Secretaries, being a very intelligent person, immediately showed how horrified he was. I lost my file for a month or two, but ultimately I received it back from the Department, and action was thereafter taken.
It is no secret that there were conversations between Lord Luke and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Luke has done everything he possibly could. That is quite apparent. Our case—I insist on it over and over again—is that it is obvious to most of us at least that here are one or two black sheep, and we want the black sheep to change their colour and fall into line with thinking generally in the country.
I was distressed that, at about that time, some local authorities challenged some fascia board advertisements and the appeals made by the manufacturers were allowed, not dismissed. They were bad cases. We were thus in a difficulty. All of us, not only those who went with deputations from both sides of the House but all who were interested in these matters, felt that the Minister was not living up to his promises.
I say at once that the work of the voluntary code and of the committee in clearing up clutter has been very successful, and, of course, we believe that it will continue. We are very glad about

that. If only it could have stopped this form of soliciting for fascia board advertisement of branded goods, there would have been no need for the Bill.
When the code was prepared, Lord Luke wrote a preamble, and the Minister wrote an introduction to it. I think it is worth quoting two paragraphs from the preamble by Lord Luke. I agree absolutely with what he says.
Local authorities are concerned to preserve visual amenities. Advertisers want to foster the material amenity of providing the public with the widest possible choice of goods at the most economical prices. Both are important functions for the community, and both are in every way reconcilable. Advertisers do not want to spoil visual amenity, which after all, is a vital part of the comunity's well-being it is their object to create (and which they are also helping to pay for). Local authorities naturally do not want to diminish the country's commercial prosperity. The object of this Code, therefore, is to bring these two important interests into the harmonious understanding their rôles demand.
I apologise for troubling the House with rather long quotations, but I think they are worth recording in HANSARD. The next paragraph reads:
Advertising is a young industry which today plays an essential part in industry and commerce. In orer to play that part effectively, it is fully conscious of the need to maintain the good will of the community it serves; and this, in what might be called its 'early middle age', it feels it has already achieved in certain important directions.
Lord Luke goes on to say something the truth of which is manifest:
The existing codes of advertising for patent medicines, poster censorship and television are practical examples of what have already been done in prominent fields of advertising.
Because of the truth of that, one is all the more anxious to see that by some method we achieve success in the whole field.
Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to allow me to visit an exhibition of the work done by the Minister's own advertisement control officers which he had organised in his Department. He was present and we looked at it together. I express my appreciation of the work done by the advertisement control officers. I was more than sorry that there were not dozens of hon. Members to go across to see that interesting exhibition that day. It was a week last Monday, about the


coldest day of the year, with a semi-blizzard blowing, and Monday, unfortunately, was not a good day, so there were not enough of us to see it.
It is quite apparent that, without the work of these officers, the country would be much worse off today than it is. The impact of their work on both safety and amenity is real and continuous. Nevertheless, having offered that graceful but absolutely true and well-merited compliment, I feel that I must make two critical comments. First, in all cases where challenge has been made in respect of advertisements which are deemed to have consent, the Minister in his capacity as appellate authority has dismissed fewer than he has allowed. He dismisses 40 per cent. and allows 60 per cent. Those, roughly, are the figures we were given when the Parliamentary Secretary's officers showed us the exhibition. It is obvious, therefore, that the Minister is, on the face of it, against the local authority in these matters to the extent of sixty against forty.
Secondly, there have been some cases of challenge against the use of fascia boards, and the response by the Minister has, I believe, disheartened local authorities. They are aggrieved about it.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister's position is difficult. Speaking from a borough point of view now, I know that the borough has its own policy. It may object to a certain sign on certain grounds, and it is then very difficult for the Minister, miles away, to judge on the facts. What is really required is the power which the hon. Gentleman suggested, the power in the boroughs to be able to decide for themselves exactly what is good and bad.

Dr. Stross: That is the purpose of the Bill. The only power which the local authority has today is power to challenge an advertisement. The Bill is designed to reverse that and give the local authority greater power. I was merely stating the facts. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it may well be difficult for the Minister, but his officers are very responsible officers. They have to go and look. It is their duty to do so. I saw many examples of excellent work done by these officers which has improved both safety and amenity in all parts of the country.
I was saying that there have not been many cases of challenge because the local authorities are aggrieved at the result, and the word is going about that it is not easy to be successful. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any figures in regard to this matter? Can he say how many local authorities have challenged the use of fascia boards for sponsored advertisements and what have been the results? How many cases have been allowed after appeal, and how many dismissed?
The Parliamentary Secretary and I, of course, have to be very sensitive about this matter. He is the Member for Norwich, South and I am the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. In both these cities fascia boards and advertisements on dwellings were tackled by the local authority, by the traders and by a voluntary organisation, the Civic Trust, and very successfully tackled. Under the eagle eye of a great designer, Professor Misha Black, in both cities we went back to the original intended purpose of the fascia board, that it should state what is being carried on, what is the business, and the name of the man, that it should be attractive and that there should be complete diversity and yet, within diversity, taking all the fascia boards in a square or street together, that there should be, as it were, an artistic whole. That is the way to tackle the problem; and, of course, it is the way to improve business, too. In both Magdalen Street, Norwich, and the square at Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent, business increased by at least 30 per cent. and that is not a bad thing. If anyone, like the hon. Member for Crosby, is speaking on behalf of the small shopkeeper, the point which I am now making is also worth bearing in mind.
I have a great deal of sympathy with our traders, and quite rightly. We should be in a poor state without them and I would do anything to help them. The method of Norwich and Stoke-on-Trent is a better way than allowing outside interests to come along and take away visual amenity and not improve the takings in the shops. It is my considered view that, despite the sincere endeavours of all those who are sensitive to this issue in the advertising industry, there are still manufacturers who are contemptuous and unheeding of the desire of the country as a whole and of


our citizens to enjoy a reasonable environment.
We are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to say what action he and the Minister will now take and when he will take it. He has a golden opportunity here. He can urge the House, for example, to give the Bill a Second Reading. If he does that he will have done a great deal. In the past three or four years the number of amenity and civic societies has virtually doubled, and there are about 600 street schemes in different stages of development. This movement is spreading fast all over the country. I admit that in saying this I am saying that it is another way of getting rid of sponsored fascia boards. That is so, but we should make it easier for people to do it. If there is a wind of change it is blowing now and in the right direction. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some goods news.

2.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). He has given eloquent support to the very powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in introducing the Bill. I am sure that everyone in the House is well aware of the great interest which my hon. Friend and the other promoters of the Measure take in preserving the amenities of town and country. I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that my right hon. Friend has the same interest at heart and that he will not allow the situation which they have been describing to go by default.
Advertising, of course, has been a controversial subject for many centuries. Most people are prepared to concede the necessity and, indeed, the desirability of advertising. This has certainly been so in every speech made today. There is no doubt that Lord Macaulay was right in saying that
Advertising is to business what steam is to machinery—the great propelling power,
There was a man who once thought that he could sell without recourse to advertising. In the end, I understand, he was

forced to issue an advertisement. It was headed, "Sheriff's sale."
The age-long dispute has concentrated largely on the method and the siting of advertisements. Next year we shall celebrate the centenary of the Act passed to frustrate the contractors who cluttered the streets with purely advertising vehicles. This was fairly effective, but I understand that the courts had some difficulty in determining whether vehicles shaped like baths or bottles were primarily load-carrying vehicles or primarily advertisements. We have difficulties of this nature to face today.

Dr. Stross: Has the hon. Gentleman in mind also Minicabs?

Mr. Rippon: That is always a possibility.
At times this controversy has led to violent action. But we in this country have never gone quite as far as some citizens in Ohio who planted poison ivy on a long embankment to discourage advertisers. During the last century when a pill manufacturing company tried to put up a large metal sign on the banks of Lake Windermere local inhabitants formed themselves into vigilantes and they threw the advertisement into the lake. The company retorted by putting the advertisement on the sails of a boat, but the vigilantes boarded the boat, bored a hole in it and sank it.
The company capitulated, but only after John Ruskin had written a letter personally requesting that the advertising should cease. The company had the last word, however, when it said, "They are evidently very aesthetic people in Windermere." It is clear from the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, that there are many people in this country who take the same view today as the vigilantes of Windermere took last century.
In the public debate on outdoor advertising two main interests are still engaged. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, fairly quoted what Lord Luke said on the subject in the foreword to the "Clutter Code". We have to reconcile the desires of those who want to foster visual amenities and the legitimate needs and desires of the advertisers who want to provide the public with a good service and a wide


choice of goods. It is our business to try to reconcile these interests and I do not think that this is impossible.
As hon. Members have pointed out, a good deal has been done already. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had to say about the exhibition which we staged in the Ministry. I think it showed that we have made considerable progress. I cannot give exact figures of appeals and how many succeeded and how many failed. They represent, of course, a comparatively small percentage of the total of applications. Each is decided on its merits and the local authority wins very often. I do not think that the local authorities have any reason to take the attitude, which the hon. Member suggested they did, that the Ministry was disparaging to their efforts.
At the same time, we all agree that one problem remains to be solved. It is the excessive and badly sited advertising on business premises which we have described as "clutter'. I do not think that anyone in the House today has seriously defended that form of advertising.
The House has been reminded that a few years ago the Government contemplated tightening the Regulations to deal with this situation. In the event, after the long series of consultations that took place, it was agreed that the advertising industry should be given a fair chance to put its own house in order. The result was the emergence of the industry's own code of advertising on business premises, the "Clutter Code" which came into operation early in 1960.
The House will recall that the Government's position was stated clearly in debate on 29th February, 1960. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury used words then which I apologise for quoting again, but they still represent the Government's view. They were:
I have said throughout, and I say again tonight, that if that effort is not successful, if this code does not achieve its object, I shall certainly not hesitate to produce in due course other means, because in one way or another I am determined to get rid of undesirable clutter as—I say at once—I believe all the wisest and most far-sighted people in the advertising business themselves desire to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 984.]

As has already been pointed out, my right hon. Friend then said that he would certainly expect to see results from the voluntary code within two years. Now that the two-year period is drawing to a close it is obviously timely that we should review the position.
I might deal with one or two matters which have arisen in connection with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations. These were made under Section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and, as has been pointed out, advertisements on business premises fall within Class IV of the specified classes in Regulation 12.
The effect of this Regulation is that advertisements which refer to the business carried on, the name and qualifications of the persons carrying on the business and the goods sold or services provided, can be displayed without the express consent of the local planning authority. It is also clear, as hon. Members have said, that such advertisements can be challenged by the local planning authority after they have been erected. I will not deal now with the difficulties which arise in that regard; they have been brought out in the debate.
One further Regulation which has not been referred to is Regulation 17, which states:
Provided that where the application relates to the display in accordance with the provisions of regulation 12 of these regulations of an advertisement of a specified class the authority shall not refuse consent, or impose a condition more restrictive in effect than any provision of regulation 12 of these regulations in relation to advertisements of that class, unless they are satisfied that such refusal or condition is required to prevent or remedy a substantial injury to the amenity of the locality or a danger to members of the public.
The position is slightly different in areas of special control because of the proviso to Class IV. I mention this, but the debate has shown that the problem now exists largely in the towns. Few urban areas are included in the areas of special control, with signal exceptions like Winchester, Durham and Wells. We are dealing with an essentially urban problem.
Clearly, as they stand under the Regulations, both the powers of the local planning authority and of the Minister are circumscribed by practical considerations and by the effect of


Regulation 17. From the outset, it has been clear that a great drawback of the "Clutter Code" and the consultative committee of advertisers is that they have no effective enforcement powers. That does not mean that they have been able to do nothing. Indeed, they have just sent to my right hon. Friend the interim report dated 1st March, to which a good deal of reference has been made during the debate.
No one can dispute the figures that they have given. They have removed approximately 73,000 signs, resited 15,000 others and dealt also with 36,000 contents boards in relation to the newspaper and periodical industry:
They also say, concerning the code of action, that
It was decided that from all points of view it was right and proper that the rural areas of the country should be dealt with first and the working committee therefore decided that it should, in the first stage of the operation, omit towns of more than 50,000 inhabitants. Some companies and interests have, in fact, also worked in bigger towns because of the geographical situation of their depots. For the latter reason they were not able, as had been hoped, to carry out the work county by county. The work proceeded throughout the year and it is now certain that phase one, the rural areas, will be completed by the end of April. Phase two, the clearance of the large towns, will be commenced immediately after phase one has been completed.
It is clear that quite a lot needs to be done about the towns.
Concerning fascia boards, we have had reference to the report which makes it clear that the committee, when it found that objection had been taken, has tried to take action. About 830 fascia boards have been removed. Nobody has been able to suggest the figure of how many have been added, but I have a fairly good idea of how the guesswork might go.
It is unfortunate, as has also been made clear from both sides of the House, that a number of the companies largely responsible for clutter—I need not name them, because the names are also fairly well known—appear to have increased their efforts in the last few years to advertise on business premises. It may be that they hope that whatever the consultative committee might succeed in doing and in taking down, their signs will be lucky and, perhaps, remain as

part of limited approved displays. Whatever their motives, however, there is no doubt that there has been a rapid spreading of this form of advertising on fascia boards throughout 1960 and 1961.
I do not think that any hon. Members, on either side, have dissented from the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that the colours used are often offensively garish. Since the boards are usually standardised, they bear no relation either to the premises or to their surroundings. There is no doubt that there is a grave danger that this form of advertising could seriously prejudice the work of the Civic Trust and other voluntary bodies who are trying to improve the appearance of our towns and cities. I have the honour to be a representative of the city which had the pioneer scheme, in Magdalen Street, in Norwich. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had the second one in Stoke-on-Trent. Both are fine. It is, therefore, a matter that we must consider carefully in regard to our towns and cities.
I am equally sure, as has been brought out in the speeches even of those who oppose the Bill, that the advertising industry is well aware of the damage to its cause which is created by the erection of these boards. As we have been told and as we know, Lord Luke, the chairman of the consultative committee set up to administer the code of standards, wrote in February, 1961, to the chairman of some of the companies who are the worst offenders. I believe that he was given qualified assurances, but there seems little doubt that whatever assurances he was given, the erection of these boards is still continuing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has indicated that he is most concerned about the problem of sponsored fascia boards. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and a number of other hon. Members have said, the scope of the Bill as drafted goes far wider. It would apply to all branded goods on shop premises. Incidentally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) suggested, there might be difficulty in interpreting exactly how far the Bill goes, and, in particular, what is meant in Clause 1 by "branded goods".
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many of these advertisements, if properly displayed, may be regarded as unobjectionable and deserve deemed consent. As he said, they would not be banned but although the flood of applications for express consent that could result might remove the clutter on shops, the cluttering of the Government machinery can well be imagined.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) wanted the Bill not because he objected to the method or siting of the advertisements, but because he thought that it might help to reduce the numbers of a certain type of advertisement and so be conducive to the health of the country. I have no doubt that the hon. Member's motives in that direction are worthy, but in approaching this problem we must be careful, as most hon. Members who have spoken have been careful, to ensure that we do not impose anything in the nature of a censorship on the content of advertisements.
As Mr. King, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, said in the debate on the original Regulations on 2nd November, 1948:
I am sure that it would be repugnant to the House if there were any form of censorship …. We are concerned with the advertisement as an advertisement: whether it advertises Sloane's back ache pills, or advises people … the distance to Llandudno is quite immaterial to us. It is just an advertisement, and we are more concerned with the standard conditions that it should be safe and clean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 817.]
That must remain the general principle. We cannot possibly attack any particular commodity in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that he had drafted the Bill deliberately widely. I appreciate Ms point that if the offenders do not act properly themselves they endanger the position of the whole of the advertising industry. But even if we were to amend the Bill considerably, and narrow its scope, there would remain two fundamental objections to it. In the first place, it is not necessary. The Bill has the effect of amending the 1960 Regulations, but the Minister already has that power. The House will have taken note of what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said about

the form of the Bill. I am sure that the Bill is not out of order—otherwise, of course, we would not be discussing it—but it is an unusual way of proceeding and one that ought to be used very rarely and in extremely restricted cases.
Secondly—and more important still—the Bill is premature. My hon. Friend says he has met that point by providing that the Bill should not come into operation for six months. It is not premature in that sense, however, but in the sense that it prejudges an issue yet to be considered. I have already referred to the interim report which the committee set up by the industry to administer the code of standards has made. My right hon. Friend is studying this document. He proposes to discuss it with the local authority associations, and then will make his own assessment on the success of the voluntary campaign.

Mr. Lipton: It would help some of us to come to a right conclusion if the hon. Gentleman could indicate by what time the advertising industry hopes to have carried out this voluntary scheme. When will it be dealing with London, for instance?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot answer for the advertising industry. What I am saying is that my right hon. Friend will study this report and consider what further action needs to be taken after consultation with the local authority associations and the industry itself. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, suggested that a two-year period might be sufficient in which to form a judgment, and although that is drawing to a close it would be clearly wrong to amend the Regulations in the drastic manner proposed in the Bill before it has been possible to make a fair and careful study of what has been achieved already.
During the next few months, we are to have a very full and careful study. I hope that the House will appreciate, in the light of the history of the subject, that it would be wrong to prejudge this general review. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend, and the House as a whole, that, in considering the effectiveness of the industry's efforts to puts its house in order, my right hon. Friend will have regard specifically to this matter of the sponsored fascia boards.


We are determined to see that all forms of objectionable clutter on business premises, including sponsored fascia boards, will be removed.
I hope that, in the light of these assurances, my hon. Friend will be minded to withdraw his Bill. Meanwhile, the best advice I can give to the industry is that it should not wait and see what happens, but should get on with the second phase of this work, because the two years is up and it is in the towns that some of the worst clutter is apparent.
I am sure, as was said by my hon. Friend, that it is much better to deal with these matters by voluntary action rather than by compulsion if possible. But the job must be done one way or the other, and I think that this debate has made it clear that that is the view of large numbers of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

2.24 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I shall speak very briefly if for no other reason than that there are, as always on Fridays, other Bills in the pipeline, one of which is extremely important. I have no connection whatever with any advertising company or association of advertisers or with any company which advertises. I got the impression from listening to some of the speeches that this problem may be rather exaggerated, to say the least. I probably do not have the finer cultural attributes which make some advertisements as offensive to me as they apparently are to other people.
I regularly see advertisements which I think are offensive and unfortunate, but to try to draw a picture, as people do on this subject from time to time, of a nation being degraded to an almost appalling degree by the clutter on small grocers' shops is rather overstating the case. We are all concerned with abuses by advertising, and are mostly concerned with such abuses in the countryside. From purely personal experience—I have no professional experience—I should not have thought that this problem was now particularly serious, although there was a time, perhaps before the war, when it was.
Today, however, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, the main problem—where there is a problem—is in

urban areas, and this is something we must obviously consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton—or is it Lambeth?—

Mr. Lipton: It is Lambeth-Brixton.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has always shown the facility to be on two sides at the same time. He made the point about smoking. To that extent, there is a case for exercising some control over advertising. I shall not enter into the merits of this particular argument, but no civilised society can go on allowing persons to advertise courses of conduct or incite others to particular actions if they can be proved to be harmful. But that is not the issue with which we are concerned today.
My sympathies, particularly after the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), are very much with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). In my innocence, I once got landed—that is the only way in which it can be described—with a Private Member's Bill and, having discovered that I was supposed to draft it myself, I have since had great sympathy with anyone accused of bad drafting. The more one sees of complex private Members' legislation the more obvious it becomes that there is a need for some form of assistance on the purely technical aspects of drafting the Bill. But I will leave that point now.
The big argument about any legislation—leaving out the technical objections, which can be made about any Private Member's Bill—is whether or not such legislation is essential. The burden of proof rests upon those who want to introduce the legislation. In my experience, I do not find that the problem dealt with in the Bill is as pressing as has been indicated by some hon. Gentlemen in the debate. Clearly, however, there is a problem. There is no dispute about that. The ideal thing, however, is to persuade people to deal with these things themselves. If we try to deal with these issues by statute, not only do we get legislation which is of necessity very complex but also we discover that the enforcement of such legislation requires considerable administration and involves difficulties—all of which appear to be rather unnecessary if, as is said, the problem can be eliminated by other means.
What are these other means? Already there is legislative provision enabling the authorities to deal with flagrant abuses. It is said that very often it takes a long time to get effective action. That may be true, but when one is dealing with things like fascia boards outside newsagents shops it is not a bad thing to have the process fairly difficult. This is not the sort of thing on which the sledge hammer of legislation should be used with too much ease and too much facility, but if there is a blatant abuse which offends both the authorities and the nation generally, then the offenders know that ultimately there can be a legislative remedy.
It has been the understanding of this industry that it has to put its own house in order. I am all in favour of professional associations trying to inject into any industry standards of conduct and professional ethics. From time to time, we have committees set up within industries for the purpose of doing precisely this sort of thing, but sometimes it becomes clear that they are a smokescreen to avoid doing anything. This happens, as Ministers are only too well aware. It enables the managers of companies in particular industries to play golf with their friends with a clear conscience and not to feel too uncomfortable.
In this case it is obvious that a great deal has been done. I do not think that any one would dispute that what has been done in this way needed to be done, and there has been a conscious effort to meet some of the objections which people have to certain practices which have grown up. If an industry shows that it is able to put its own house in order, that saves everybody a great deal of trouble and avoids legislative interference, which most of us dislike in these days, unless it has to deal with something really serious and exceptional. If an industry is unable to do this, I think that the Minister showed quite clearly that the Government are left with no alternative but to take governmental action. It cannot be done by private Members.
One would hope that in the course of the next twelve months the committee will not only be able to continue its work but be able to place some of the more

recalcitrant members of the profession more firmly on the paths of righteousness and get them to co-operate. It looks as if much of the problem that arises concerns not so much the very small men as a very small number of very big men, and it should not be beyond the wit of an industry which makes its living in this way to prevail upon them to exercise a little more common-sense and restraint than they have done so far. If they cannot do this, they will be fully aware from this debate that they will themselves be in difficulties.
From time to time I feel that some of us in this House tend to get a little emotional and pious about this question of advertising. It is something that is with us; it is part of the modern world.

Mr. Lipton: It is wicked.

Mr. Marsh: I am not saying whether or not it is wicked. A little wickedness is one of the things that makes life worth living in any society.

Mr. Lipton: Oh.

Mr. Marsh: I feel sure that, although my hon. Friend may say "Oh", he would not be able to produce a very detailed disavowal of that suggestion.

Mr. Lipton: I still say "Oh".

Mr. Marsh: This is something with which modern society is faced. Advertising is part of the modern world. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in the most oppressive dictatorships of the world we find a great deal of extremely distasteful advertising. It is the advertising of politicians and of political parties, not particularly honest advertising very often, but clearly it would be pointless for me to spend too much time in attempting to make that point to hon. Members opposite, because many of them are here only because of the truth of that statement.
It is a fact that wherever one goes there is advertising and one has to live with it. Obviously, some of it is quite good; it is attractive. I, with my horrible lack of cultural instincts, like to see powerful, attractive advertisements in the urban areas, but I should not like to see them in the Lake District.
In fact one can produce highly artistic advertisements. The French


manage to do this with much greater facility than we do in this country. I think that if the advertising industry did a little more research into this, it might well feel that it had more friends. There are advertisements which are most unpleasant and unsightly. What is at fault is not advertising per se, but lack of professional standards by some advertisers, and this is something which, I think, can be met and greatly improved.
I should not like to have too many people who feel passionately about this, as we all feel about things, trying to make Piccadilly Circus, with its bright lights, into a kind of municipal city centre. I like Piccadilly Circus with all its vital vulgarity. I like the colour that goes with it. That is one of the things that makes many cities in the western world attractive and gives them atmosphere. But I think that when we are faced with problems of this type, there has to be restraint. The only people who are in the position to raise the standards of the industry ultimately—because we are not going to prevent advertising—are the advertisers, and ail that we can hope for is to try to persuade them to raise the standards until the worst excesses of advertising are met.
If we can do that by exhortation today, we shall do a very much better job than by trying to legislate against it. If we attempt to legislate against it, we shall be faced with enormously complex legislation requiring a great deal of bureaucratic administration, which will, in the end, cause everyone a great deal of trouble and fail completely in the aims which, I think, roost people are united in agreeing are necessary.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on making today a really first-class private Member's day. When he started his speech, I was rather afraid that he would have a walk-over because we always expect a very high standard from my hon. Friend. I think that all hon. Members will agree that he surpassed himself. He became so persuasive that I thought there would be no opposition to the Bill. But the first torpedo came from the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). That has

been referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like to mention it again because it seems to me it concerns particularly what a private Member can do on a private Member's day.
The hon. Member for Islington, East is a lawyer who knows much more about these things than I do. He made, what I would describe in simple layman's terms, the point that this Bill was designed to annul the wording in a Statutory Instrument and as such it just made nonsense. This Bill has had a First Reading and therefore it is in order. I should have thought that if in our wisdom we gave the Bill a Second Reading and if, with a great deal of luck, it went through all its other stages and came on to the Statute Book, it would become the law of the land and—merely as an argument—I do not think that the Minister could reinstate that Regulation. If he did so it would be merely flouting the law of the land. In any case, it brought to the notice of some of us who favour the idea behind the Bill the fact which has again been brought out by my hon. Friend, that this is perhaps not the right way of doing things.
In that respect, I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). I agree with him that the type of advertisement and the quality of it is the crucial point. The difficulty with these advertisements is that they are made of paper and pasted on boards, and whereas one week there may be a lovely advertisement which everyone likes to look at in a drab and dull town, the next weeks the same advertiser can paste over it a dreadful advertisement.
To come back to the actual argument surrounding the Bill, my real object in speaking is to draw attention more to the future than to the past and present. I suggest, with respect, that most of the speeches from both sides of the House have been dealing with the past and the present. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich that a great deal has been done. The advertisers have started to put their houses in order, but, at the same time, that work has been annulled by the introduction of more fascia board advertising. It is rather like a first-class cricketer who goes in to bat and scores


100, and then fields at cover point, where he gives away 120 runs. By so doing he annuls his original good work.
When one looks into the future—and I am looking in particular at two types of urban area—the outlook is frightening unless something is done, and done on a voluntary basis. I refer, first, to the type of urban area which I represent. This is a new town, and I refer also to the type of area from which my constituents have come, the big conurbations such as London.
All the new towns are still under the close surveillance of a development corporation. Crawley New Town will be the first to move from that into the new concept of coming under the New Towns Commission, but at the moment the development corporations can, and undoubtedly do, keep a close eye on this problem. Having seen a number of new towns, none of them offends in the form of advertising that they allow. I think that all hon. Members will agree with that, particularly if they have seen Crawley, but there is a danger that in future they will offend, and offend badly.
Some modern buildings lend themselves to bad advertising. If, as my hon. Friend said, the matter is to be looked into, perhaps during the investigations his right hon. Friend will have a word with the Chairman of the New Towns Commission and point out to him that at the moment the new towns maintain a high standard, and that this House expects this standard to be maintained.
Coming back to the conurbations, I saw the other day—and this is merely a plan which will be coming before my right hon. Friend, so perhaps I had better not mention it by name—a magnificent new modern concept of the development of one of our large cities. The development consists of about 5 acres. The idea is to leave about 4 acres as open space. Obviously, the answer is that enormous great buildings must be erected on the rest of the land.
With respect to my noble Friend Lord Brabazon, who spoke about this the other day, I think that to a certain degree, and within limits, all future development in the great conurbations must be along those lines. There must

be as much open space as possible, and we must build enormous sky-scrapers—much higher than we have seen so far.
I notice in these Regulations that there is a limitation of 20 feet in the height and one-twelfth of the total face area of the building. If one thinks of a building of 30 to 40 storeys, there is the risk of an appallingly large area being used for advertising.

Mr. Graham Page: The Regulations do not permit advertising by deemed consent above 15 feet from the ground. I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are justified.

Mr. Gough: With respect to my hon. Friend, I wonder what he means by the ground, because some of these buildings are to be built high up with gardens round them. Is it the garden area, or the ground level? If it is ground level, my fears are unjustified because there Will not be advertising.

Dr. Stross: I gather beyond doubt that it is ground level.

Mr. Gough: I am glad that my point has been answered, but I still believe that the pull of advertising—if I make the pun I make it badly—is something at which this House ought to look carefully and should continue to do so.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to our notice, but I am glad that the debate has gone the way it has, because, looking at the Bill, I feel that this is not the proper way to deal with this serious problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I decided to intervene in the debate only because of representations made to me from people in my constituency about the possible effects of the Bill. I do not often come here on a Friday and I was amazed when I went to the Vote Office and collected all these Regulations.
For a long time I was puzzled about the changes which would be brought about by this Bill which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who lives in a most delightful part of England. Indeed, we were all carried away by his


rhapsodies and the Shakespearean expressions he used, and even my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) left the Chamber enamoured with the praise of Bridgnorth and the wilds and beauties of Shropshire, from where I come.
I was still puzzled why an industrial firm in my constituency should have written to me about the Bill, but as the debate developed it became obvious to most of us that the Bill was a sort of scooter. We were being asked to scoot in and out of the Regulations and use an Act of Parliament to do it. Then the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) pointed out that if the Bill were made into an Act of Parliament it would compete with the original Act. This seems an extraordinary situation into which to get ourselves.
I am in sympathy with the Minister when he says that this sort of legislation is unsuited to the laudable object of my hon. Friend. I can only point out one of the troubles which the Bill would cause in my constituency. Besides the advertisements which will be on the outside of shops there are some new and attractive things called vending machines. In certain areas of the country where people work different hours or come from the hayfields, or have been on late-night shifts, they like to use this method of purchasing their goods. These machines are on the outside of shops and can sometimes be seen through the shop windows.
I have to admit that I have an interest in this. The firm of Joseph Sankey is in my constituency and it makes these machines, and I am a business consultant to the firm. I must declare all that at once.
The firm says that a vending machine which sells goods for twenty-four hours a day affords a real amenity, and I am advised that if such a machine displays upon it an advertisement for some brand of cigarette, or some form of quick-frozen food, it would automatically be caught by the Bill.

Dr. Stross: The machine would have to be attached to the business premises, so that it could not easily be moved away from them—otherwise it would not be caught.

Mr. Yates: These vending machines are often screwed to the wall outside the shop. I imagine that they would be caught.

Dr. Stross: Yes.

Mr. Yates: There we are. I am sure that the firm which wrote to me felt that the Bill would affect not only the workers in my constituency but also the vast export trade which it is carrying on. Any curtailment of this industry would have an adverse effect upon its export market.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked the Minister to tell him the number of occasions on which the challenge has been enforced and the number of occasions on which it has been refused. The Minister did not answer that question, but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that the proportion was about 60–40. I should have thought that my hon. Friend could have told us how his powers are being used, and whether he thinks that this method of challenge and Ministerial decision afterwards is working properly.
We all want to preserve the beauties of the countryside, and we loathe the sloppy clutter of vulgar forms of advertisement. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), who has a new town, which I hope to visit in order to learn some lessons for my new town. First, we must try to obtain the co-operation of the industry and, secondly, the Minister must use his power to see that an ultimate sanction can be imposed against those who fail to meet the requirements which the nation demands.
My sympathies are entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. He has done the House and the country a great service in pointing out how dangerous this name-board racket is becoming. It should be curtailed. Nevertheless, in view of the debate that we have had, I ask him to consider withdrawing the Bill and allowing the Minister to produce something which may be a little more effective. I would rather have seen this debate taking place on a Private Member's Motion than during the valuable time—of which so little is available—devoted to Private Members' Bills. I do not mean to be discourteous in any way, and I hope that my hon.


Friend will accept my remarks in the spirit in which I have made them.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), I had not intended to intervene until I heard the debate that has taken place so far. I have not been able to hear the complete debate, and for that I apologise.
I was very struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). He seemed to be putting forward the sort of view I normally expect to hear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) on a Friday. He said that the test of any new Bill coming before the House was the question: is this legislation essential? Shades of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach).
The hon. Member went on to say that if an industry could put its own house in order legislation must be avoided. I wondered how the hon. Member reconciled that point of view with the nationalisation advocated by the party opposite. Anyway, the hon. Member made a most valuable contribution to the debate.
It is with the greatest reluctance that I say that for the first time since I came into the House that I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), for whose views I always have the greatest respect.
Perhaps I should declare an interest in the matter. I have nothing to do with the advertising industry, as such, but I am a director of a company that has a certain amount of advertising material throughout the country. I am advised, however, that the effect of the Bill upon that company would not be very great, so that if I have an interest it is very marginal.
I am told that, as it is at present worded, the effect of the Bill would not be confined to name boards. I wonder whether garages would be affected by the terms of the Bill if they bore a board advertising Shell, or some other brand of petrol.
A great many tourists now visit this country, and we must do all we can to

encourage them. One thing a tourist wants to know, for instance, is where he can obtain film or other material for his Kodak camera. If all advertising outside shops is to be banned it will make it very difficult for tourists to know where to obtain the material they want. I know how difficult it can be from my experience in foreign countries.
I wonder how the Bill will be administered. I imagine that there will be an enormous number—perhaps many thousands—of appeals, which will have to be decided by my right bon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We are always being told how overburdened the Ministry of Housing already is with planning and other appeals. Many appeals have to be settled by the Ministry each day, and this Bill would clutter up the administrative machine enormously.
I am also concerned in trying to preserve some of the things we cherish in England. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) takes an active part in so doing, and I sympathise with the aims of anyone who wants to preserve the English countryside and keep it reasonably clear from gross advertising which is not controlled in a proper manner. But I should have thought that if the voluntary control that exists is satisfactory it ought to be possible to avoid taking compulsory powers. The Bill would cause a tremendous administrative blockage, because of the number of appeals, and I do not know what would happen about those appeals even if they were heard. Would they be allowed? If my right hon. Friend were to allow them all there would seem to be little purpose in the Bill.
I am the last person to criticise anybody for the bad drafting of a Private Member's Bill. I have my own Bill, which is still before the House, and I have had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford so far. I am loath to think that I might endanger his further support by anything I say today. The strictures of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) were not quite fair to my hon. Friend. We all know the objectives which he is trying to attain, and all of us—the hon. Member for Greenwich had great experience of this—know how difficult it can be to draft a Private Member's Bill.
I have great sympathy with some of the aims in the Bill, but I think that as it is drafted it goes too far. We ought, I believe, to stick as far as possible to voluntary control, about which we have heard quite a lot today. I think that the effects of banning so much advertising outside shops would cause grave hardship not only to the shopkeepers but also to the general public, and that consumers, a minority of whom appreciate my hon. Friend's intention, would resent not being able to know the sort of shop with which they were dealing.
I join with others of my hon. Friends in begging my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to withdraw the Bill at a suitable moment. I am afraid that I cannot support it. However, I hope that, in doing this, my hon. Friend will not be so displeased with me as to try to get me to withdraw my Bill on Third Reading. I have enough respect for my hon. Friend's wisdom and charm to know that he will not hold this against me.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. John Page: When my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) opened the debate this morning, it was obvious that he had the whip hand in regard to the Bill. I think he will find my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary such a willing horse that he will not have to be particularly tough in driving through the Bill.
When I first looked at the Bill I was instinctively opposed to it, but I must say that I find its long-term objects, which my hon. Friend outlined so attractively in his speech, very praiseworthy. Nevertheless, during the last forty-eight hours, both in my constituency and between London and my home, I have been carrying out an inspection of the use of sponsored fascias. On the whole, I think that the new fascias which have recently been put up are an improvement to the outside appearance of many shops. I believe that, suitably persuaded, the large organisations are likely to show better taste in the production of the fascias outside their shops than, possibly, the small man.
There is a great danger, however, that there will be complete uniformity in our smaller streets. They will begin to ape the monotony of the high streets, with shop after shop in each town belonging

to the same multiple organisation and tending to look quite the same. My hon. Friend made one point about the work of the Civic Trust, which, in Windsor particularly, as I know, has been most successful. Would it not be possible to make the streets which the Trust selects for improvement subject to special control, so that they come under Clause 3 of the Bill?
May I very quickly give just a few examples of where I think there would be hardship both to shopkeepers and shoppers if the Bill were to become an Act? Many people want to buy branded goods. A shop which says "Jaeger House" or "Clarke's Shoes" is often the very shop in a town which many visitors and many local inhabitants wish to visit because they have had previous experience of the goods which they sell and want to patronise them again.
I wonder, too, if a shop which said "Agent for Clarke's Shoes" would, in fact, be offering a service and not the sale of branded goods. There is also a convenience in the easy recognition of the different kinds of shops which these common fascias offer. When one sees "Joe's Café" and Coca-Cola signs on either side, one knows, perhaps, that it is a good pull-up for drivers. When a travel agent displays on the outside of his premises "American Express Travellers' Cheques Changed Here", would that be permissible? If the notice said, "American Express Travellers' Cheques Sold Here", would it be considered as offering a branded article for sale?
Is it suggested that a motor showroom should not be allowed to say which cars it has to display, so that prospective purchasers might pull in and look at the models in which they are interested? Again, there is the question of off-licences. Many fascia panels outside off-licence premises show well-known names like "Mackeson's Stout" or "Double Diamond", and surely it is important that when, at the end of a long day's work, a man may want to buy something to drink at home, he should know where he can get it. If we make arrangements to enter the Common Market my hon. Friend might like to know whether it is possible to buy Mumm or Moet at a particular off-licence. Finally, I have a feeling that a shopkeeper might be driven to the


extent of imitating a hotel in Wales where there is a notice outside announcing, "Teas without Hovis". Perhaps the catalogue which I have given might underline how undesirable it would be for the proceedings of this House to be broadcast or televised.
I agree that the present Regulations may be abused. I think that my hon. Friend has done a great service by introducing this subject for discussion. I am quite sure that the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will act as a warning to the small number of firms who appear to be ignoring and abusing the code which, on the whole, is being operated successfully.

Mr. Deedes: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.7 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At this late hour it would ill become me to attempt to review the history of the offences with which this Bill is concerned. I think it sufficient to remind the House that on two occasions there have been debates, one on the initiative of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in which the Wolfenden Committee's view that the law as it stands carries the criminal code beyond its proper sphere and could undermine the moral responsibility which each individual must bear, was considered. It is well known that although a hundred hon. Members took that view, the present Parliament has insisted that not only is homosexual conduct sinful, but that it is so offensive and injurious to the community that in all circumstances it must remain a crime. Nevertheless, I do not think that it is presumptious of me to say that the majority of Members felt a profound unease when these debates were concluded.
They were uneasy about the witch-hunting which had been shown by the

Wolfenden Report to have existed, and which was known to many hon. Members to be in existence. That type of conduct was repugnant to the sense of fair play of most hon. Members. I believe also that there was a feeling in the House indicating a considerable repugnance to what was clearly going on in some areas by the over-zealous pursuit of stale offences. I believe, too, that almost everyone felt profound concern at the fact, which was revealed, that there was often a lack of protection for a blackmailed man who found that on turning to the police he, too, was prosecuted with the blackmailer.
I believe that most Members of Parliament, even those who most vigorously oppose the major recommendations in the Wolfenden Report, felt the utter inadequacy of dealing with the homosexual by a term of imprisonment. The comment of the Home Secretary, that often the last stage of the homosexual who was in prison was worse than the first, was understood by all hon. Members, most of whom appreciated that, whatever the merits or demerits the law might have, it was clear that to imprison a homosexual was about as effective as sending a rapist to the women's prison at Holloway. On some of the matters upon which the House clearly felt disquieted the Wolfenden Report had made recommendations, but those minor recommendations appear to have been lost amidst the clamour which took place concerning the major recommendation which would have given immunity to discreet adults.
It is to fulfil some of these minor recommendations and to attempt to allay some of the anxieties which were expressed by hon. Members who could not accept the major recommendation that I have been prompted to bring this Bill before the House. Since the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, the question has remained dormant. All action has been shirked. Meantime, every four hours it is calculated that an unfortunate baby is born in Britain who is fated to be a homosexual. It is said that at least one man in 25 is a homosexual. I know that homosexuals tend sometimes to exaggerate the extent of homosexuality because they wish, as it were, to minimise their sense of guilt.
Whether that is true or not, it is said that there are half a million practising homosexuals in this country. Whether that is so or not, it obviously amounts to a substantial and unfortunate minority.
Although they have not chosen their fate, most people recognise that there could be few individuals who would opt for homosexuality. For nearly all, if not all, their disposition arises from birth or a faulty family upbringing. They are doomed to be denied what to most of us who possess it is the greatest blessing God can give—a happy married life and the gift of children. Compassion demands that, although, clearly, the matter is a distasteful one, a renewed attempt should be made to bring in legislation which, while ensuring that society—and, in particular, juveniles—and public decency shall be protected, nevertheless does not completely outlaw this unfortunate minority.
Clause 1 of the Bill has two main aims. The first is to contain the blackmail, the most heinous of offences that has prompted the law as it stands—in particular, the Labouchiere Amendment—to be known as "the blackmailer's charter". The second and subsidiary of the two main purposes is to prevent witch hunting. The House will be aware that a former Attorney-General expressed the view that 90 per cent. of the cases which came before him touching upon blackmail were connected with homosexuality. The police have clearly conceded, as will be seen from the Wolfenden Report, that out of 71 cases of blackmail reported to them over a fixed period, 32 were connected with homosexual behaviour.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: What was the fixed period?

Mr. Abse: It was a three-year period.
That was the total number of offences brought to the attention of the police. Since I am prompted doubtless to understand the reasons for that intervention, I emphasise that these figures are a long way off from the actual number of cases of blackmail which take place. Criminal lawyers, if they have practices touching on these matters, know how often people come to them for aid.
Since the hon. Member has intervened, I shall quote one case which took place in my experience some years ago. I found in my early practising years that cheques by way of professional fees were being given to me by people who belonged to the criminal fringe and that they were signed by a particular individual. After this had occurred two or three times, I made inquiries. Finally, I managed to obtain information as to who the man who had signed the cheques was. I found that he was a retired clergyman who has since died. The members of this criminal fringe had ascertained his weakness and known of his offences. They were compelling him to pay money to them over a period even to the extent of having the effrontery to get him to pay these fees for their housebreaking offences.
I could recite, as I believe many lawyers could recite, particularly solicitors, who are in contact with the general public, many similar instances, and they continue all the time. Indeed, this week I received a communication from a university lecturer who is doing sociological work. As seems to be the wont of so many who are doing this sort of work, he was cultivating local café society, in making a sociological study of café-delinquency. This study seems to have been fashionable recently.
He found there a young man who had not done a stroke of work for seven years since leaving school, apart from a few months as a builders' labourer, but who was possessed of an expensive car in which, the investigator found, he was taking suitable good-looking young people to the West End with the specific object of ensnaring homosexual victims. Together with this group of apprentice blackmailers, this contemporary Fagin had lived for some years on the proceedings of his lamentable activities. Fortunately, the information supplied by the lecturer to the police led to the main blackmailer being imprisoned.
Apart from overt blackmail, it is clear that there are many other cases. I direct the attention of the House to paragraph 110 of the Wolfenden Report, which says that, in addition to the overt blackmail, there is a considerable amount of tacit blackmail which continues all the time. The Report reads:
There is no doubt, also, that a good many instances occur where, from fear of exposure,


men lay themselves open to repeated small demands for money or other benefit, which their previous conduct makes it difficult for them to resist; these do not amount to blackmail in the strict sense, but they arise out of the same situation as gives rise to the blackmail itself.
We cannot minimise the fact that blackmail exists, and it is highly unfortunate that, as the law stands, one isolated act of folly by the vulnerable individual could condemn him to extortion in perpetuity. Under the Bill, after the twelve-month period proposed, it would not be possible to commence proceedings. That is to say, under the Bill it would not be possible to commence proceedings in respect of an offence which had taken place twelve months previously, and that would at least put a limitation on the period for which the blackmailed man may be vulnerable. To this extent, too, it would prevent an over-zealous pursuit of stale offences.
In some police areas no proceedings are commenced unless the complaint or offence has obtruded itself on the notice of the police by clear breach of public order or decency. In others, however, offences are pursued with a morbid and prurient curiosity. If, in the course of the investigation of some instance of a particular homosexual offence, the police are possessed of this type of curiosity, they can sometimes extract from an accused man the names of those with whom he may have had some relation over a period of very many years.
There are cases known, some recited in the Wolfenden Report, in which, seven years previously, a man has committed a homosexual act; he has since matured, married and forsaken his homosexual practices. Surely everyone must agree that it is savage and purposeless to shatter the life of such a man after such a long interval of time by commencing proceedings. This twelve months' limitation within the Bill will end this type of zeal.
The provision in the Bill which ensures that in cases which take place between adult homosexuals in private the proceedings must be initiated by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, will also act as a deterrent to blackmail, since the practice of over-zealous interrogation would hardly be

commendable to a Director of Public Prosecutions.
I draw attention to the fact that a recommendation was made by the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure a generation ago that the Director of Public Prosecution's Department rather than the police should be encouraged to take statements from blackmailed persons. This was after the Royal Commission had heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions about his method of dealing with blackmailed men. It is important that I should stress this aspect, because there appears to be a certain coyness abroad on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, although in so many instances he does not fail to exercise his discretion, would appear to be retreating from the idea that he would have a discretion at his disposal if the Bill were passed.
It is interesting to observe from the evidence given by Sir Archibald Bodkin, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, that he considered the circumstances in which, if a man was blackmailed, he gave protection to the blackmailed man. He said in evidence:
I should not consider it necessary to ruin"—
giving as an instance a clergyman who had been engaged on sexual adventures—
the clergyman for life by forcing him into the witness box where his identity might well leak out notwithstanding precautions. If the offenders could not be prosecuted, save for the blackmailing, I should send for the clergyman and discuss the whole position with him, and if he agreed, his name being suppressed, which I could assure him every Tribunal would permit, I should prosecute; if he did not consent, as his statement was made confidentially, I should probably not think it right, and have not thought it right in such a case, to institute proceedings. There is a kind of balance, which in a fair view of the situation, is to be struck between the ruin of the man and the scandal and the gravity of blackmail, but I should recollect that it would probably not be very long before the Police received further information about the offender.
I mention this because there can be no question that, if we endowed the Director with this type of discretion, the blackmailed individual would be able to have the protection which Sir Archibald Bodkin mentioned in his evidence to the Royal Commission, which would enable blackmailed men who have turned to the police no longer to fear


that proceedings would necessarily be commenced against them.
Further, the provision in respect of the Director of Public Prosecutions which I urge would ensure uniformity in the application and administration of the law. Some had thought that the Wolfenden Report, which made clear its deprecation of out of the way prying which gave rise to the suspicion of witch-hunting, would probably have ended the practice. But I observe that Mr. C. H. Rolph, whose contributions I have heard commended by the Home Secretary in the House and who is invariably well-informed, in this week's New Statesman affirms that at the moment a homosexual witch-hunt is on because of two London murders. I believe that by endowing the Director of Public Prosecutions with this discretion we may be able to have a more humane standard of administration in respect of these offences than exists at this time.
One further result flows from Clause 1. Offences of gross indecency may by this Clause be tried summarily. From time immemorial until 1885 this offence was not known to English law. It did not result, as far as my researches go, in any particular historical calamity. I believe that the provision in the Clause enabling an offence to be tried before magistrates and enabling fines of up to £100 to be imposed will be welcomed even by magistrates who are not prepared to take any permissive attitude to these offences. In such cases, where publicity has brought its own shame, even such magistrates may consider that a monetary penalty will see justice done and society adequately protected.
Clause 2 makes it mandatory on the courts in all homosexual cases to have a medical report on conviction and before sentence, provided that it is the first offence. At present, according to a Cambridge University survey, in only 20 per cent. of homosexual cases are medical reports obtained by the courts. It may be said that the Wolfenden Report had directed its mind and had given attention to the question of whether or not medical reports should be obtained in all such cases, for that Report clearly came to a conclusion contrary to that which I am attempting to embody in the Bill. But at that time we had not had the Streatfeild Report—which the Government have promised to implement—

and which will mean that it will be possible to have pre-trial inquiries and, as a consequence, without administrative difficulty, have medical reports in the higher courts.
At the time the Wolfenden Committee made its recommendations the Mental Health Act had also not yet been passed. The provisions under that Act which exist now, whereby there is a panel of people approved for particular statutory purposes—medical people—was not in existence at that time. Therefore, the administrative difficulties which were pointed out in the Wolfenden Report no longer apply in the light of legislation and events that have taken place.
It is important that sufficient humanism should be displayed towards this minority so that, since we know that the condition is not necessarily irrevocable or reversible, there should be an effort made to see if such persons can be saved from prison. There can be no question—and there is abundant evidence—that in many cases, fortunately, the condition can be treated. At the time of the Wolfenden Report a memorandum was presented to the Departmental Committee on behalf of the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency, and the Portman Clinic. As the House knows, considerable work has been done there in respect of homosexuals who have been referred to the clinic, usually by the courts.
It was found from the records of 77 of their patients that as a result of a period of treatment in recent years, 34 had shown no sexual impulses or behaviour after treatment. Another 21 of them retained homosexual impulses, but had them under conscious control and discretion, 14 were considered to have improved and in eight cases it was acknowledged that no progress had been made.
It seems obvious to me that if there is, in fact, any possibility of allowing a man to resume or gain a heterosexual life then such a man should not be condemned unnecessarily to imprisonment where, unfortunately, his habits and behaviour are likely to be confirmed and more fixated than otherwise. If probation and treatment can be arranged so as to protect society, who would, rationally, want to send a homosexual to prison?
There is one further matter relating to medical reports. Although the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are not in conflict with the law other than that of homosexuality, there is no question that for some violent psychopaths homosexual behaviour is a symptom of their condition. In the memorandum submitted at the time of the Wolfenden Committee this was stated by the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency:
… it is pertinent to add that one of the strongest arguments for submitting all persons charged under existing laws with homosexual offences to psychiatric and other forms of scientific examination is that by such means it would be possible to isolate types of homosexuality most likely to be accompanied by violence or other forms of anti-social behaviour. …
I do not want to labour this point, but it seems to me that when we are concerned with preventing violence and crime it is important that we should at least take advantage of the fact that fortunately, on the evidence of some of the most highly-trained psychiatrists in the land, it is clear that they are able to make a prognosis in the case of some psychopaths, where homosexuality is a symptom, indicating whether they are likely to become violent, if not murderous, in present circumstances, it seems unfortunate that we do not take advantage of the medical knowledge that is available and consider this technique which may lead to some lives being saved and some violence abated.
There is a final point which is mentioned in Clause 3. The House will recall that it appears from paragraph 76 of the Wolfenden Report that the Committee felt that the word "brothel" should include premises used for homosexual practices. It is not my intention, nor that of those who support the Bill, to encourage in any way behaviour that would be offensive to the public. It is, therefore, intended by the Clause to make it unequivocally clear that the term "brothel" and the use of premises for such purposes under existing law would also apply if some-thing like male prostitution were carried out in such establishments.
I am pleased to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs representing the Government because I am aware, as is the whole House, that undoubtedly

he personally would wish to go much further in dealing with the matter than does my modest Bill, for he is on record as having been a supporter of the Wolfenden Report and, indeed, supported the Motion moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. Therefore, I am encouraged and fortified by his presence.
There is often a great deal of cynicism about politicians. It comes about because lip-service is often rendered by politicians to noble causes, but when opportunities arise for serving these causes, lip-service is as far as it goes. Indeed, the sympathy that the Home Secretary sometimes extends is now generally regarded as something like the kiss of death. I trust that the Joint Under-Secretary will not follow the unfortunate example of the Home Secretary. It is certain that there are no votes in amending homosexual laws; there is no possibility of waging electoral campaigns upon these issues. There are, however, occasions in public life when those of us who believe that a wrong is being committed, even though there is little understanding on the part of the public, and whatever opprobrium may be attracted, have a duty to look after minorities, whether those minorities be criminal or homosexual, gypsies, or sick or ill.
It is in that spirit and, I believe, informed with that kind of opinion that I have attempted today to present the Bill which I now recommend to the House.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on his fortune in securing a place in the Ballot and on the extremely persuasive way in which he has dealt with his Bill and propounded its substance to us, but I emphatically oppose it. Naturally, I was attracted by what he said when introducing Clause 3, that he was seeking to continue along a strict and narrow course of right conduct in public life, but I find it extremely difficult to understand the real purpose behind the Bill.
As I see it, the teeth of the Bill are in the Schedule. If it were provided that there was not to be a prosecution after twelve months had elapsed from the date of the offence, a number of


grave injustices of a kind quite different from those to which the hon. Member has referred could be caused. Justice, as I see it, should act swiftly, but, inevitably, there will be exceptions in the application of our desire for swift justice, and, in advocating a time limit or moratorium in respect of any offence, we must, I suggest, be very careful lest any great offence occurring outside the time limit should escape.
As the hon. Gentleman will agree, it would be a disgraceful state of affairs if an offence were committed and then the offender conveniently disappeared for twelve months, only to reappear in thirteen months and say, "I can get off scot-free now". That is one prospective injustice.
Another type of injustice would arise if we were to accept the peculiar principle enshrined in the Bill. If we make special provision for the homosexual, what about other offenders? Why should not the burglar or any other offender one cares to name have a twelve months' or a three years' period of limitation enacted in his case? What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. So long as it is the intention of Parliament and the country that homosexual offences shall be regarded as offences, I see no reason to allow this loophole.
I gather that it is the intention that, in effect, the Director of Public Prosecutions alone should have the right to institute prosecutions. I have taken the step of discussing this matter with several—I hope that they will forgive the term—minor judges, those judges and magistrates into whose courts matters of this kind come. They tell me that the great bulk of cases coming to them come as the result of offences committed in public anyway. They do not come as the result of hidden, secret or private offences. Therefore, they would be caught anyway under Wolfenden, and the claim that the Director of Public Prosecutions would set up a single code for prosecutions of this kind cannot, I suggest, be substantiated.

Mr. Abse: The intention of the provision is directed only to those cases which take place between adults in private. It is right, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the overwhelming majority of cases do not fall into that category. In fact, there are little more than 100 such cases a year. It is to these

cases and these alone, where the danger of blackmail, and so on, is very great, that this provision is directed.

Mr. Wells: I am obliged to the hon. Member. That was precisely why I said that the bulk of cases came from the other source. I would remind him that it is less than two years since Parliament, by a very large majority—and this ought to be borne in mind—decided that the time had not yet come to implement the Wolfenden Report. A homosexual act committed by consenting adults in private remains just as much a criminal offence today as any other homosexual act.
If it is desired—and I, for one, do not desire it—to impose some form of central control over prosecutions of this sort, why not impose it for all offences? I am not a lawyer and that is why I find it somewhat difficult to follow the hon. Member for Pontypool, who deployed his case with such extreme skill, on which I congratulated him. It is because I am an ordinary layman that I feel somewhat strongly about this and, if I may be allowed, I will try to deploy my case to the best of my non-lawyer ability.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North) rose—

Mr. Wells: No. I will not give way.
The real reason for restricting the right to prosecution is that the promoters of the Bill are seeking some form of Wolfenden watered down, some restriction of the decision which Parliament took a couple of years ago. This seems to me to be their aim. Parliament having taken this decision by a large majority, I would deplore seeing a vote taken when there can be only 80 or 90 Members present this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Pontypool dealt with medical matters at some length. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that there was in The Times some time last summer on two consecutive days an account of the practices in the prisons and medical institutions in Scandinavia. It was clear from this account that the state of the law in Scandinavia—and the country mentioned was either Sweden or Denmark—was not at all satisfactory.
There are two main points in connection with medical evidence in this


country. In the first place, there may be some doubt about the offender's responsibility for his actions and I would not wish to impede any attempt to arrive at the truth. That is the difficulty and that is why we need medical reports. The first problem is that if an offender is to be remanded for a medical report that must take a long time. In spite of what the hon. Member for Pontypool has said, I have always been given to understand that a great majority of confirmed homosexual offenders are not amenable to treatment.
If a man is not amenable to treatment, it seems absurd to set out at the public expense to seek to treat him. It will be throwing money away to no advantage to the nation and to no advantage to the man in question. In my constituency there is a large prison where I believe that the best treatment that is suitable is offered to these unfortunate people. I believe that the prison system offers a definite method of combating this problem, because it is a deterrent.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: This is a very interesting point. The hon. Member is telling the House that in a prison in his constituency the very best possible treatment is given to homosexual offenders. None of us is aware of any treatment given to such offenders in prisons. Would he care to expand on that for the enlightenment of the House?

Mr. Wells: I do not want to expand on it at great length, because I do not want to speak for too long, but, bearing in mind that medical treatment is suitable only for some, the firm treatment of the deterrent is the most desirable of all.
We had a firm vote two years ago on this issue. The Bill seeks only to provide the Wolfenden Report watered down, and I hope that the House will not give it a Second Reading.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: May I sincerely and earnestly beg the House to try to approach this matter from a common-sense point of view. It is no answer to say that we dealt with it two years ago, that we should forget all about it and do nothing about it now.
The Bill is, I suggest to the House, a very modest step in the right direction. I commend the effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for obviously not endeavouring to go the whole hog. He has not attempted, as the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. J. Wells) apparently thought he had attempted, to put into effect in the Bill the recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should cease to be a crime. He has not done that, because obviously he would have had little prospect of success. We appreciate that the majority of hon. Members are not ready to take this step. It will come in time.
But clearly there is considerable dissatisfaction with the present state of the law. Most of us, and I am sure even the hon. Member for Maid-stone, recognise that we are dealing here with an unfortunate minority. It is not their fault that they are different from normal persons. Their state must command a measure at least of compassion. To send them to prison, to let them mix with other criminals, can do no good and in many cases must do considerable harm.
We know that in many cases medical treatment can help considerably, and I therefore welcome Clause 2 which makes it mandatory, at any rate for the first offence, that there shall be a medical report. I hope that the hon. Member for Maid-stone realises that often medical opinion is sought now. I am sure that the hon. Member does not quarrel with the provision making it mandatory, and to that extent he must support the Bill.
Clearly, too, the change in the law contemplated which would enable magistrates to deal with offences would be a helpful change. Where there is an opportunity of a fine, an expression of disapproval on the part of the magistrates and the shame of publicity, it may make the offender realise his position and serve the purpose of protecting society. Surely no hon. Member can disagree with a provision of that kind.
I have spoken of the protection of society and it is often said that the public must be protected. This is often put forward as the reason why we should not adopt a more lenient attitude to these offenders. But as a rule the offences committed by consenting


males in private—and that is what we are dealing with—are not known to the public, and it is not therefore a question of protecting the public. Indeed, there are two provisions in the Bill which in any case assist in the very object of protecting the public.
First, there is to be no prosecution for offences committed more than twelve months before. The hon. Member for Maid-stone, in criticising this, asks why we should not deal in the same way with other offences, such as robbery and theft. But we are not dealing with that type of offence. We are here dealing with a particular type of offence which many of us believe ought not to be a crime at all.
Nobody is suggesting that we should apply this to the majority of crimes, but, because of the special nature of this particular offence when it is committed, it would be an important provision that there should not be a prosecution if it were committed more than twelve months previously. I suggest that the provision is very sensible. What can be the use, from the public point of view, of reviving memories of such acts? It may be, as my hon. Friend has said, an isolated case. It may be the offence of an individual who has now settled down, who has married, who has changed his ways. Why bring upon him the shame of publicity and the penalty of punishment which will affect not only the offender and possibly ruin him but may well seriously affect his wife and family? Moreover, it is clear from statistics that homosexual cases are the easy prey of blackmailers. This provision would lessen that danger.
Secondly, I commend to the House the requirement in the Bill that prosecutions should be initiated only by the Director of Public Prosecutions or on his behalf. As matters stand today under the law, a prosecution is made either by the police or—as we all know can be done—by a private individual. We know that the practice, therefore, differs throughout the country. In some parts, no prosecution takes place unless there has been a clear breach of public decency. In other parts, there is a prosecution where it is much less than that. This provision would result in uniformity throughout the country.

which would provide another shield against the attack of the blackmailer.
I earnestly ask all hon. Members to consider the small effort of progress made in this Bill. It may be small, but how important that progress is! I support the Bill strongly. We move very slowly in these matters—far too slowly. In Europe, only Western Germany and this country now regard homosexual conduct between consenting males in private as being a crime at all. It is time we took a step forward to remedy this position. This Bill would do so. Although we have only a short time in which to discuss this matter, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I have listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), but I take a completely different view. He himself put the case against the Bill in one sentence. He said that he and others thought that this kind of offence should never be a crime at all. About a hundred hon. Members agreed with Part II of the Wolfenden Report and cast their votes accordingly at the time. This is an attempt by some of that minority—whose views I respect but disagree with—to take a step forward along the path of making this offence not an offence any more.
I hope that this Parliament, and future Parliaments, will never go one inch of the way along that path. This Bill should be rejected in total. It is quite incapable of being amended. The very title is erroneous. It abuses the words it uses and would mean a sort of glorification of these offences, which are rightly called "abominable", by muddling them up with ordinary sexual offences.

Mr. Abse: The Sexual Offences Act, 1956, included Clause 12, dealing with buggery, and Clause 13, dealing with indecency between men. What other words could have been used in the title?

Mr. Doughty: It could have been, "Bill to amend the law relating to homosexual offences". Certainly the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, contained the Clauses mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but the rest of it dealt with entirely different


matters. It may seem strange to use such an expression in discussion of this matter, but that Act dealt with things which, in this context, were of a more respectable nature.
If this Bill were passed, I agree that it would not go the whole way to making this offence no longer an offence, but it would place the offenders in a privileged position. Many hon. Members have said, with truth, that these people are recidivists—to use a criminological expression. They keep on committing these crimes because they want to. They are not the only ones. Go to any criminal court in the land and one will see people who are determined house breakers or forgers. Are they to be treated as people of a special character and sent to some mental hospital? Of course, if they are in need of hospital treatment they can be given it under the Mental Health Act, but many of them do not need such treatment and commit these crimes because they like doing so.

Mr. Weitzman: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the vital difference between this type of offence and any other?

Mr. Doughty: The one is of an invidious sexual nature and the other is robbery. They are both criminal offences and have been so for a very long time. There is a difference between burglary and assault but they, too, are both criminal offences of a bad nature. This type of offence is particularly repugnant to the vast majority of people in this country.
The sting of the Bill is to be found in the Schedule. It proposes to give this type of criminal carte blanche should his offence not be discovered for twelve months. Why? I agree with all hon. Members who have spoken that all criminal offences should be prosecuted as quickly as possible and not be left hanging over people's heads, but a criminal of this kind who knows that the police are just behind him can be on the Continent in a few hours, and provided he stays there for twelve months can come back, however heinous was his offence, and snap his fingers at those who would specially feel it their duty to prosecute him.
Why should the Director of Public Prosecutions have to give his special sanction to this sort of matter?

Mr. Abse: Mr. Abse rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Doughty: Why should the Director of Public Prosecutions have to be brought into this matter? If a police-main catches two of these criminals red-handed committing this offence, why should they be told that the facts will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions to see whether he desires to prosecute?
There are many aspects in which the Bill fails completely, but in the short time at my disposal I want to deal with one matter, the question of medical reports. Consider the time that will be wasted if the men have to be remanded on every occasion to get a medical report. At the moment they can be fined and the matter—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

COURT PROCEEDINGS (MEEK v. FLEMING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion a question arising out of the case of Meek and Fleming, and I do so at the request, among others, of a number of senior officers in the Metropolitan Police Force who are deeply concerned about the integrity and reputation of the force. I have already given the Minister notice of the specific questions I intend to put to him, but I must briefly recapitulate the relevant facts.
The present Commissioner, Sir Joseph Simpson, was appointed on 1st September, 1958. In the following month, on 8th October, a certain Mr. Fleming was promoted to the post of chief inspector, he having been selected, the previous April, for promotion to that rank by a


selection board over which Sir Joseph presided. Chief Inspector Fleming was put in charge of Cannon Row Police Station.
On the night of 5th November, 1958, Guy Fawkes night, a number of arrests were made in Trafalgar Square, and the arrested persons were taken to Cannon Row police station, charged, and subsequently released. It so happened that Mr. Meek, who is a Press photographer from Fleet Street, with a good record, was in Trafalgar Square that evening taking pictures. He was arrested, on a charge of obstructing the police, at 9.40 p.m., taken to Cannon Row, and kept in a cell until 1.30 a.m. Very considerable violence was caused to him by a number of police officers, including Chief Inspector Fleming.
On 17th December, 1958, Mr. Meek was convicted at the magistrates' court of obstructing the police and fined £5. He had, however, already issued a writ against Fleming for damages for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The case eventually came to trial on 20th October, 1960, but prior to that two important things occurred.
In December, 1959, Fleming had been demoted, or reduced in rank, from chief inspector to station sergeant. This was the result of a disciplinary action by the police arising out of circumstances in which Fleming had been involved in a deliberate deception of a court of law. This fact was not, however, known to Mr. Meek the photographer.
The other relevant fact is that on 18th November, 1959, about the same time, there was a debate in this House arising out of the case of Garrett and Eastmond, with which the Minister will be familiar, and I want to quote two passages from what the Home Secretary said on that occasion. In column 1248 he announced that it was the regular practice for the solicitor for the Metropolitan Police to represent police officers against whom civil proceedings were taken in relation to conduct while on duty. He also said that the present Commissioner
is not a man who will tolerate the covering up of any officer who has brought the service into disrepute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1959, Vol. 613, c. 1254.]
Mr. Meek's action came before Mr. Justice Streatfeild, sitting with a jury, on 21st October, 1960. It lasted five days.

After an absence of four hours the jury returned a verdict which resulted in Mr. Meek's action being dismissed and judgment being given in favour of Fleming, the defendant. The contest at the trial turned entirely upon the credibility of Mr. Meek, the photographer, on the one hand, and that of Fleming and six other police officers, on the other, as to what had taken place in the hours around midnight at Cannon Row Police Station.
Here, I should observe, in parenthesis, that in recent years, unhappily, there have been a number of cases in which members of the public have had to complain of violence by police officers at police stations. I myself have raised a very serious case in the House. Almost invariably, when charges of this kind are made, the Home Secretary tells us that an inquiry has been held by the police themselves, vindicating the police officers involved. He has often added that anyone who is aggrieved at what takes place in a police station has the same remedy in the civil courts as against any other member of the public.
Mr. Meek pursued his remedy in the courts, and lost, but after the case was over he learnt the facts of which I have just reminded the House, namely, that prior to the trial Mr. Fleming had been demoted from inspector to station sergeant. That fact was deliberately concealed from the judge and jury. Whereas the six police witnesses for Fleming appeared in court in uniform, Fleming appeared in mufti. His appearance in uniform as a police sergeant would have aroused suspicion. Moreover, he was frequently referred to by the judge and by counsel as "Inspector Fleming," and care was taken not to reveal that he had, since assaulting the plaintiff, been demoted for a disciplinary offence involving the deception of another court of law. When he was asked, in cross-examination, "You are a chief inspector, and you have been in the police force since 1938?" he answered, "Yes, that is true." That reply was a lie, and amounted to perjury. These facts are taken from the Weekly Law Reports, 4th August, 1961.
When Mr. Meek and his advisers learnt the true facts they applied for a fresh trial. This was resisted by the police, acting, presumably, on the


instructions of the Commissioner. The Court of Appeal, however, in June, 1961, took the unusual course of setting aside the decision of the judge and jury. They did so on the ground that Fleming had deliberately misled the court, and that it would have been an intolerable infraction of the principles of justice to allow him to retain his verdict. A new trial was ordered, but before it was heard the solicitor for the Metropolitan Police agreed to pay Mr. Meek £2,000 damages and indemnify him for all his legal expenses. One may well wonder why that course had not been taken in the first place.
Mr. Meek's honour has, therefore, been vindicated, but that is not the end of the matter. As is well known, Mr. Victor Durand, Q.C., has shouldered responsibility for the conduct of the trial and has paid the penalty. I make no comment whatever on the rights or wrongs of Mr. Durand's conduct, or of any censure that he may have received. I am concerned with the responsibility of the solicitor for the Metropolitan Police, the Commissioner, and the Home Secretary. Fleming could not have attended court in civilian clothes without the express instructions of the Commissioner. It would have been a breach of regulations clearly laid down in the Metropolitan Police Instruction Book for him to have done so.
These Regulations are quite express. Chapter 9, Section 19 (a) provides that:
Police attending on duty at any Court"—
and the word "any" is underlined—
will be correctly dressed in uniform.
I am well aware that I may hear that there has been some change in these regulations since this time. Indeed, when I put a Question to the Minister of State on this subject as long ago as 27th April, 1961, and when he told me then that there were no general rules applying to the wearing of uniform in the civil courts, he was in error.
These are the questions I want to ask. Mr. Durand, in accepting liability—and this is quoted at the end of the report of the case in the Weekly Law Reports—said:
Neither my learned junior counsel nor my instructing solicitor was responsible for initiating or pursuing that policy, and, indeed, they expressed their disapproval of it.

The seriousness of the offence, the seriousness, of course, of the deception of the court, was that very often the liberty of the subject depends upon the veracity of police witnesses in a court of law.
The public have become entitled to expect that police evidence will be honestly and truthfully given, and, as a rule, it is. It is because the liberty of the subject is so often affected by the credibility of police witnesses that it is most important that the highest standards of integrity should be observed by the police, the Commissioner and by the Home Secretary supporting them when they give evidence.
On this occasion, the Court of Appeal has said that there was a wilful conspiracy to deceive and mislead the court. At what stage did Mr. Durand take responsibility for this mischievous course of action? May I observe that the solicitor for the police was, of course, accepting responsibility for the conduct of this defence. The £2,000 which was eventually paid was paid out of public funds. If the solicitor expressly disapproved of this course of conduct, what did he say to the Commissioner? Did the Commissioner approve of it? Did he consult the Home Secretary or ask the Minister whether he approved of police officers, in cases conducted by the solicitor for the police, wilfully and deliberately deceiving the court and perverting the course of justice?
Has the Commissioner made any apology? Will the Minister make some apology now? After all, for whose benefit was this deception practised? It could not have been for Mr. Fleming's benefit, because he was not going to pay in any case. The police funds were going to pay. For whose benefit was it that Mr. Durand, if it were he alone, went to this extraordinary length? There is ground for feeling that the Commissioner knew of this course of conduct all along. He, and he alone, must have instructed Fleming to attend the court in civilian clothes, because if he had done so without authority, then, presumably, there would have been disciplinary instructions taken against him. Can we know whether these instructions were given in writing or


verbal? Can we know what the Commissioner said to the solicitor? Can we know whether the Commissioner himself was deceived? Did he know anything about it? Did the Home Secretary know that this was the course of conduct?
I put these questions because, unfortunately, there is a widespread belief that there is a course of policy, of which this case is merely symptomatic, to try and cover up actions of police officers when they are criticised in this way. If there is that course of conduct, then, of course, it is most reprehensible. It is contrary to the best interests of the police themselves as well as of the public, and it is something that ought to be stopped.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that he is not entirely responsible for what the Commissioner does. If he is not satisfied with the course of conduct pursued in these matters by the Commissioner he can, of course, dismiss the Commissioner or terminate his agreement. It might be that that is the next thing to be done. But the public mind is very uneasy to find that in this case, which is not an isolated case, there has been this deliberate masquerade and a course of conduct which has had the result not merely of deceiving the court but which would have produced injustice if it had not, quite fortuitously, been discovered.
I hope that we shall hear two things. I hope that we shall hear an expression of profound regret by the Minister for what has happened. I do not think that Mr. Durand should shoulder all the responsibility. There ought to be a full, independent inquiry as to who else in the Commissioner's Department, and whether the Commissioner himself, knew about what was being done and approved it. Obviously, the solicitor for the police should have stopped it. We know that he disapproved.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is not incumbent on any solicitor or clerk, let alone the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, to concur in a course of conduct which he knows to be dishonourable, which is what happened here. I suggest that at the very least the whole of the papers in this case, including instructions sent to counsel, notes of any conferences with counsel

and any inter-office notes in the Commissioner's office, be sent to the Royal Commission now inquiring into the conduct and affairs of the police, and the relations between police and public generally, so that there may be a full investigation.
May I conclude as I began, by saying that I, as much as anybody—and certainly, may I assure him, as much as the Minister—have at heart the well-being and integrity of the Metropolitan Police. I raise this matter today in this way because a great many responsible senior officers in that force are very distressed that a course of conduct as exemplified so blatantly in this case is tolerated by the Commissioner. It redounds to the discredit of the force. Most respectable and respected senior officers are anxious to maintain and improve the moral standing of the force and to do everything to enhance the reputation of the police with the public.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I will deal with the last point first. I should have thought that if senior responsible officers felt anxious on this point, their right course would be to see the Commissioner, or, if necessary, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have no evidence that they have done or have asked to do either of those things.
The case which is the subject of our debate is one which has roused considerable public interest and has had unforeseen repercussions outside the police service. Today we are concerned only with those aspects which affect the Metropolitan Police. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for giving me some notice of the points he intended to raise. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two points in particular, the wearing of plain clothes and the settlement of the action, and he asked for the views of my right hon. Friend about them which I will give. The hon. Gentleman has asked for information today on a number of other points on which, I must confess, I should have preferred to have some further warning. However, we will see how far we can go.
I hope I shall be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman at any rate on the two points he raised. I do not dispute the


principal facts which he gave by way of explanation of what he proposed to complain about. But I think it would be as well if for the record, and in order to get the various major events in this matter into their true time perspective, I just gave a short chronological sequence which only partly overlaps what the hon. Gentleman has given.
As he said, the case arose from an incident in Trafalgar Square on Guy Fawkes night, 1958. Mr. Meek, a Press photographer, was taking photographs in the Square and was arrested by Fleming who was then a Chief Inspector. Meek was charged with obstructing Fleming in the execution of his duty and with causing wilful damage to Fleming's raincoat. On 17th December, 1958, Meek was convicted at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on a charge of obstruction. The charge of causing wilful damage was dismissed. Immediately after the hearing of the case Fleming was served with a writ alleging assault and battery, trespass and false imprisonment. The hearing of this action began on 17th October, 1960, and ended on 21st October with a verdict for the defendant. On 14th December a notice of appeal and a notice of application to adduce fresh evidence was served. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in June, 1961, when all the grounds of appeal were dismissed except one, which read as follows:
That at the trial the rank and status of the Defendant was by implication represented to be that of Chief Inspector, when in fact between the date of the matter complained of in the action and the date of the trial he had been reduced to the rank of Station Sergeant, by reason of misconduct, and that the credit of the parties was a crucial issue at the trial.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal on this ground, ordered a new trial and ordered that the costs of the appeal and the costs of the first trial be paid by the defendant. That order for costs, incidentally, is somewhat material to the ultimate terms of settlement.
The case was finally settled out of court in December, 1961. The disciplinary proceedings as a result of which Fleming was reduced in rank had been in December, 1959, and were not in any way connected with the events which led to the arrest and conviction of Meek.
The hon. Member has laid stress on the fact that Fleming appeared in court in plain clothes when the case was heard

in October, 1960. He suggested that this was part of a deliberate policy of concealing from the defence that Fleming had in the meantime been reduced in rank as a result of disciplinary proceedings. I am advised by the Commissioner that there were no standing instructions governing the appearance in civil courts of police officers at that time. There certainly have been cases in which defendants have appeared in civil courts in uniform. Nevertheless it had long been the practice—recollection so far as I have been able to find goes back to the mists of time—for a Metropolitan Police officer who appeared in court as defendant in a civil case to wear plain clothes.
In the present case, the concurrence of Fleming's leading counsel was obtained to the course taken. The hon. Member asked me whether the Home Secretary now approves of the decision that Fleming should wear plain clothes. My right hon. Friend certainly sees no reason to dissent from the view that as a general rule officers who are appearing in civil cases as defendants should wear plain clothes. After all, proceedings are then being taken against them as ordinary citizens. Needless to say, however, my right hon. Friend would not approve of any attempt to deceive a court. As I propose to show, in the present case, as far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, there was no question of deliberately concealing Fleming's reduction in rank for it was thought at the time that the question of the clothes he should wear was irrelevant to the question of the evidence to be given to the court.
This is a matter which has been gone into in great detail in several places and I am not going over it all again. The hon. Member, however, forces me to go into the question of Mr. Durand's part in this. I do so only with reluctance and only because one has to defend the action of the Metropolitan Police. I shall quote fairly fully the statement he made. It has been partly quoted by the hon. Member and I am grateful to him, for I think that he has been very candid about it. The statement which leading counsel for Fleming made in June, 1961 after judgment had been given on the appeal, was as follows:
The decision not to disclose the Defendant's change of status was mine, and mine


alone. Having come to the conclusion that this course was justified I determined and dictated this policy throughout.
Neither Junior Counsel nor my instructing Solicitors were responsible for initiating or pursuing that policy. In fact they expressed their disapproval.
The hon. Member kindly gave notice that he would suggest that the case was quickly settled out of court once the full facts had come out on appeal. He did not stress that so much today, but it is an inference that some explanation is called for from me. The question whether to settle in this case was naturally one for full and anxious consideration, and there was no question of rushing a decision. The appeal was heard in June but a settlement was not reached until some six months later. After the appeal had been heard in June, fresh counsel were briefed and the case was considered with them.
Public money is involved in cases of this kind and a settlement has to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as police authority for the Metropolitan Police. Before authorising the payment made, my right hon. Friend was satisfied that the course taken had been determined on the best possible legal advice. The facts simply do not support any suggestion that the case was settled out of court in order to hush it up. It had already been given ample publicity through the hearing of Meek's successful appeal and through the proceedings elsewhere which followed the judgment. Indeed, there can have been few cases of this kind which had received more publicity.
The question which first the Commissioner and then my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to consider was whether in all the circumstances any public interest would be served by deciding not to attempt to reach a settlement, notwithstanding the advice received, but instead to go through court proceedings yet again. There are no grounds at all for any suggestion that in cases in which civil proceedings are taken against a police officer in respect

of an act committed on duty, the general practice of the Metropolitan Police is to settle out of court rather than to face court proceedings with the attendant publicity. Each case is considered on its merits. If there is a reasonable defence, the case is defended. If, on the facts, it appears to be indefensible, it would be wrong in the interests of the plaintiff, of the defendant and of the public purse not to seek a settlement.
Although I have not had an opportunity to check the point, the hon. Member was not quite correct in quoting the Court of Appeal as having referred to a conspiracy in this matter. The action of leading counsel concerned, for which he had apologised to the court, was mentioned, but there was no suggestion that others had conspired in this way, and I think that I ought to put that straight for the record.
The hon. Member asked for whose benefit was deception practised. Quite candidly, in view of the full avowal which leading counsel made in this case, I do not think that either the Commissioner or my right hon. Friend is called upon to answer a question like that. I do not feel it incumbent upon me to do so.

Mr. Fletcher: Did the solicitor consult the Commissioner? Did the Commissioner know about it or was he deceived, too?

Mr. Renton: I cannot, without notice, answer detailed questions as to what passed between the solicitor and the Commissioner. The Commissioner naturally engages a fully-qualified solicitor in whom he has every confidence. Mr. Durand has made it quite clear—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.